Related posts:

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 2nd, 2010 at 9:00 am and is filed under International Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

None of the stuff released so far is that revealing. It all seems to be gossipy stuff from some middle level official. Mervyn King’s (Bank of England Chief) reported comments pre-election about Cameron and Osborne shows a naive understanding about what politicians can say pre-election and what they can do post election. I guess Julian Assange will stay low for as long as he can. The charges arising out of Sweden look pretty serious, so that will give Governments cover to round him up if they find him. I assume he is in Switzerland or some such place where extradition warrants can be difficult to get.

Assange may be the frontman and the founder, but Wikileaks is far bigger than Assange, and if he were to be assassinated Wikileaks would continue – in fact it would probably go from strength to strength and also find out and reveal who was responsible.

Assassinating Assange would probably therefore be counter-productive and make a martyr of him, so I doubt it will happen. More likely he will be imprisoned somewhere on some trumped up charge, which is very likely what’s going on with the rape allegations in Sweden.

either way the dude is a hero who’s inspired millions of people. If they’re stupid enough to even try to lock him up he will instantly become a martyr and wikileaks will decentralise. the people who admire him are far smarter than those who are trying to catch him – this is evident in how they’re making such a strong attempt at character assassination, with little grasp of just how smart and useful some of these people are.

tvb – he hasn’t sodomised a 13 yr old girl, Switzerland is tolerant of that, Assange would be the first to be secretly assainanted in Switzerland if he was threatening exposure of secret USB accounts. Who cares about innuendo about spying on Helen Clark or plots to overthrow North Korea. Newsflash for Greenie supporters, no utopia exists in the world, there is bad people out there, Assange is not exposing anything new. Send Mossad after him. Advice to Assange, don’t go to Dubai

I am reminded of The Pink Panther Strikes Again, where every secret service in the world sends assassins to kill Inspector Clouseau in ever more bizarre and hilarious fashion. Naturally, they all end up killing each other by mistake.

There is no actual charge of rape – there are allegations of rape, and a “red notice” (which is not an arrest warrant) has been issued because Swedish Prosecutors want to interview him in response to those allegations, not becasue he has been charged with rape.

Like Pete, I have no idea whether the allegations are trumped up or not, but they do have a suspicious look about them. I also can’t imagine why anyone who believes as passionately in an ideal as Assange does would risk throwing it all away by committing random acts of sexual violence against women.

Assange has not even been charged in Sweden – he is formally wanted there as a witness.
The Interpol red notice against Assange is for questioning on suspicion of sex crimes.
He remains under arrest in absentia and under an arrest warrant. The original warrant was withdrawn then later re-opened.

So what you are saying is that you would give Assange the benefit of the doubt for no other reason than he is a lefty?

That is hypocrisy of the highest order, you and I both know how you would be reacting if the person facing a accusation of rape was somebody who campaigned against the climate change con, we both know how you would be reacting if this was a National party MP.

At least admit that you are a hypocrite, it would save us all a hell of a lot of time.

I don’t defend Wikileaks — I mean there are so many potential consequences, many of which could be bad — but the idea is paradigm shifting. I mean if you have some committment to the idea of open information and genuine democracy you at least have to consider the balance of moral implications involved with an open mind. The way I see it, it comes down to two worldviews:

1) You understand that the world is controlled by a relatively small proportion of powerful people and that the government has a broad mandate to defend the national interest through powerbroking and secrecy as part of its array of foreign policy tools (i.e. tactically offering support for US military and information initiatives and spying on your own people if necessary). i.e. you trust the powerful people in charge as doing basically what you would want them to do and believe the general population is not in a position to make decisions about such issues.

2) You understand that the world is controlled by a relatively small proportion of powerful people but have a view that democracy should allow as much information as possible to be freely available to allow the public to make genuine decisions about issues such as our involvement overseas. i.e. you believe the population can make informed decisions about the national interest and that they are worthy for debate.

I am disappointed all this stuff is so boring. What a silly lot we have become if bits of gossip, dinner table conversations and ordinary chat become so shock horror. Spare us the increasingly desperate efforts of the print media to sell their rags.

Assange might or might not be a serial rapist. But he is certainly a psychopath:

“The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. “1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,” says Assange. It’s a chilling statistic, but then he states: “On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased.” ”

Regarding the 2007 Kenyan election Assange is already on record as saying:

“1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,” says Assange. It’s a chilling statistic, but then he states: “On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya.”

Assange will try to shelter in NZ when he finds out about how gutless NZ was manipulated by a tiny far-left mob in Auckland and its “useful idiots” among the politically correct into accepting gatecrashing, on-the-run Zaoui.

One irony of this is that some of the people who usually promote the ideals of freedom, less government and more transparency are also claiming that government agencies should have protected secrecy and to be able to exercise power unhindered by democracy.

It’s difficult to know how pissed off governments are over these leaks – some are expressing outrage but is that just a show or is it for real? They are so used to duplicitous behaviour (and vice versa), subterfuge, nod and a wink, praise in public/diss in private etc no one can tell what the truth is.

Bullshit has become the normal currency. And many people think that’s fine, more than that, they seem to think it should be protected, sacrosanct.

Pete, ive certainly appreciated that irony — i don’t know whether that’s because they have some naivety around all such secrecy being positive or necessary as opposed to the very real possibility that the environment of secrecy itself may lead to a wide variety of potential corruption.

I think its a mixed bag — I mean for the UK, which was just dragged into a war that most of the population were against under pretences that are now proven to be false, I think this stuff is extremely relevant. Of course, some of the repercussions such as the likelihood of less record keeping and less centralisation of information as a result of leaks are relevant too (not to mention leaking names of informants). But I think if you’re generally interested in open information you still explore the various implications and state which aspects you are in favour of and which you are against. Rather than just taking a side based on your political tendencies.

The other thing that is ignored is that, as far as I understand it, Assange is just operating a service — publishing documents on a webpage for public viewing. Other people are leaking these documents. If you’re against Wikileaks you’d surely be up in arms about Swiss bank accounts as well sheltering all those criminals’ money…

Toad>So are you suggesting that Assange should have sat on the information revealing the corruption of the Kenyan Government because of the potential consequences of releasing it?

It’s a country that is always on the brink of inter-tribal violence. It has also been corrupt, as are all its neighbours. It’s almost certainly just as corrupt now as it was before Wikileaks released Kenyan documents. I think for this to have been a just thing to do there would have to be a net benefit to the cost-benefit analysis. I doubt if there was any benefit, altho the costs are obvious and large.

The aspect I find reprehensible is the lack of remorse and the attempt to pass off the death toll with the reference to malaria. It’s as if African lives are cheap, and can be sacrificed to inflate Assange’s giant ego.

If someone proposes some concrete action that would improve African governance and therefore their economic and social well being then I’d be all in favour. But inflaming tribal genocide doesn’t help anyone.

Good links djp. One of the worst outcomes of state secrecy is it’s ability to hide what it stuffs up and what it does unlawfully and immorally, as inevitability seems to happen with secret power.

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of the level of secrecy and clandestine power that the current rulers of the US bestow upon themselves.

I wonder if the Tea Party will support the efforts of Wikileaks to expose and shame those gathering increasing levels of secret power, in the hope that their country will return to some of the ideals of their Constitution.

The Wikileaks website migrated to Amazon’s cloud hosting service yesterday after being hit by a distributed denial of service attack. Amazon decided to discontinue serving the controversial website this morning in response to pressure from critics, including prominent members of Congress.

None of the stuff released so far is that revealing. It all seems to be gossipy stuff from some middle level official.

Really? I can’t imagine the Chinese are too happy about their thoughts re North Korea being revealed to Pyongyang. Deniable of course, but….

either way the dude is a hero who’s inspired millions of people.

Tossing yourself in front of a troop or ammunition train might make one an “anti-war hero”. Tossing a match into the powder keg of Korea – not so much. But then we’ve already seen what he thought of the Kenyan situation.

It’s a country that is always on the brink of inter-tribal violence.

Exactly, just as North and South Korea have been on the brink of a shooting war for five decades. In such a situation diplomacy is exactly what is required, with all the attendant qualities that are normally despised, such as secrecy, subterfuge, hypocrisy, etc, etc. Distasteful – but better than the death of millions. Perhaps Mr Assange is secretly a warmonger?

Assassinating Assange would probably therefore be counter-productive and make a martyr of him,

One of the most notable things about the Russian and Chinese governments is that they don’t really give a damn if someone is a martyr, so long as the message is sent to everybody else: reveal this and you’re dead.

Jack5: “Assange will try to shelter in NZ when he finds out about how gutless NZ was manipulated by a tiny far-left mob in Auckland and its “useful idiots” among the politically correct into accepting gatecrashing, on-the-run Zaoui.”

Suddenly the Lefties become champions of freedom of information – as long as its freedom to rat on diplomatic confidentialities that may harm the West.

I’m talking about Toad, Danyl and co.

Make no mistake about the hypocrisy of the Left. It now joins the side of Assange, as many Leftists have joined the side of militant Islamicists and for the same reason – because the enemy is the West.

Leftists have long supported countries with state-controlled media, and censorship generally. Think of the Helenistas of the last Labour Government trying to sneak in “hate-speech” controls only to be blocked by publicity arising from then ACT MP Stephen Frank’s alert spotting of a clause secreted in a bill. That “hate speech” clause, triggered by overtuning of a censorship of a religous group’s anti-gay film, would have drastically increased NZ state censorship powers. How hypocritical then of NZ Lefists to support Assange claiming him as a champion of freedom of information.

Toad and Pete G and co miss the point that by opening confidential diplomatic information immediately, Assange and his fellow anarchists threaten to cause much important and sensitive diplomatic information to become oral only. Until-now recorded confidential diplomatic information ultimately has become available to all – when it is no longer any threat to current negotiations or international relations.

Assange’s spy leaks threaten to end such time-limited confidentiality. What is now ultimately available will largely disappear as talk does, or survive only as far less reliable memories that may or may not be disclosed by old ex-diplomats. Thus Assange ultimately threatens freedom of important information.

The arrogant stupidity of Assange greatly magnifies the flaky approach practised by some NZ historians when they not only rely on, but also praise the authenticity of, orally-transmitted hearsay and family and tribal legend.

Assange will force historians world wide into more use of similar questionable oral sources as they research, weigh, and write about international history.

His approach to information resembles his alleged approach to sexual relations – seize and be damned.

One of the worst outcomes of state secrecy is it’s ability to hide what it stuffs up and what it does unlawfully and immorally, as inevitability seems to happen with secret power.

And one of the worst aspects of complete state openess is laid out in the following TNR article, from which, some brief excerpts:

Here are three ways the leaks could have a lasting impact on American foreign policy. None of them will be good news for those of us who value transparency and who believe diplomacy, not force, should enjoy primacy in the U.S. approach to the rest of the world.
…
the ramifications for US-Russia relations are difficult to overstate. So much rests on trust between individuals in a relationship like that where baggage of mutual suspicion extends decades back. When they see the details of their assessment of Iran’s ballistic missile program posted online, which they provided to US interlocutors in confidence, they will think more than twice before ever telling us something sensitive again.
…
In the last few years, there has been some progress toward classifying fewer documents and using the more rarefied classifications less frequently. This series of leaks will almost surely reverse that progress. A top-secret classification would have kept any of these documents off the shared network from which they were allegedly downloaded by a very junior soldier.
…
I’ve called [these discrete policy positions] progressive, because they are. They’re also, with a bit less emphasis on the global good, realist. Or you might simply say they are sane and reasonable. But if we can’t conduct quiet diplomacy and have it stay quiet, it’s a lot harder to make this approach work. Could Sadat and Begin have gotten to Camp David without months of quiet preparation? Could Nixon have gone to China?

Suddenly the Lefties become champions of freedom of information – as long as its freedom to rat on diplomatic confidentialities that may harm the West.

Have the Righties suddenly become champions of all powerful secretive government?

It’s far less simple than that. There needs to be some degree of privacy and secrecy, just as there needs to be some degree of honesty, openness and transparency.

The enemy isn’t “the West”, it should be anyone acting against the interests of democratic power and rule of law. Shouldn’t it? The West becomes it’s own enemy when it places itself above democracy and the law.

It would be a bugger if “the people of the West” were to find out more about what is said and done in their name, wouldn’t it.

tom – I’m not against a certain amount of secrecy, but there are ample examples of it being grossly overused and abused. We can’t just blindly trust those in power.

There is no actual charge of rape – there are allegations of rape, and a “red notice” (which is not an arrest warrant) has been issued because Swedish Prosecutors want to interview him in response to those allegations, not becasue he has been charged with rape.

Then why has he fled Sweden? Its hardly a country known for its ‘good ol boy’ sycophancy.

…if the SIS can’t label someone a terrorist sympathiser based on their google research…

AG either denies or is ignorant that Zaoui, whose Islamicist party did not have entirely clean hands in Algeria’s dirty war, was run out of two or three European countries on security grounds. They found him a safe haven in Malaysia, but for some reason Zaoui didn’t regard that as safe enough.

“Google research” – rubbish!

I suppose Zaoui’s ripping up of his passport and crashing into NZ was some sort of internet rumour, too?

Suddenly the Lefties become champions of freedom of information – as long as its freedom to rat on diplomatic confidentialities that may harm the West. I’m talking about Toad, Danyl and co.

There is no “suddenly” about it. I’ve always been a champion of freedom of information. There is nothing inconsistent about supporting the state playing a significant regulatory, economic and social role and supporting transparency and accountability to the public in the way the state carries out its functions. Not everyone on the left is an authoritarian Stalinist.

As for your reference to “harm the West”, the biggest embarrassments from what has been revealed in the Cablegate leaks to date are to China and North Korea.

“1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,” says Assange. It’s a chilling statistic, but then he states: “On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya.”

Yesterday, Wikileaks released a US diplomatic cable about a meeting between Prince Andrew – who has “gainful employment” as a British trade ambassador – and a group of British businessmen in Kyrgyzstan, which revealed the prince’s support of corruption:

Having exhausted the topic of Kyrgyzstan, he turned to the general issue of promoting British economic interests abroad. He railed at British anti-corruption investigators, who had had the “idiocy” of almost scuttling the Al-Yamama deal with Saudi Arabia. (NOTE: The Duke was referencing an investigation, subsequently closed, into alleged kickbacks a senior Saudi royal had received in exchange for the multi-year, lucrative BAE Systems contract to provide equipment and training to Saudi security forces. END NOTE.) His mother’s subjects seated around the table roared their approval. He then went on to “these (expletive) journalists, especially from the National Guardian, who poke their noses everywhere” and (presumably) make it harder for British businessmen to do business.

But it gets worse – it turns out that he had been using his position as a member of the royal family to demand special briefings from the UK Serious Fraud Office on their corruption investigation into BAE:

The head of the SFO, Richard Alderman was summoned to Buckingham Palace shortly afterwards, on the morning of 13 May 2008, according to a palace spokesman.

Asked if Andrew had discussed the BAE case at that meeting, the spokesman said: “I would be surprised if he didn’t.” But he said: “The director of the SFO didn’t report to him anything other than publicly available information.”

After his return from Kyrgyzstan, Andrew accepted an invitation to tour the SFO’s headquarters in Elm Street, London on 9 December 2008.

According to the palace, he again discussed the state of the BAE case, which was still probing secret alleged payments to clinch arms deals in several other countries.

There is no conceivable honest reason for this. The only reason for someone in his position to demand such a briefing is to obtain secret information which could then be passed to BAE or the Saudis and used to undermine the investigation.

What about the consequences – some intended and some presumably not – of the US secrecy which led to blunders and the drawing other countries into a war that killed a minimum of about 100,000 people killed, with millions displaced. So far.

…I’ve always been a champion of freedom of information. There is nothing inconsistent about supporting the state playing a significant regulatory, economic and social role and supporting transparency and accountability to the public in the way the state carries out its functions.

Where would you have stood, Toad, on the thwarted Labour bid to introduce “hate speech” legislation?

If there is a valid reason for such extra censorhip, where would you delineate it, and what would be your criteria for meeting the delineation?

I agree with the TNR article points posted — its a very real possibility that this attempt will create less open government. It seems quite possibly counterproductive to reveal this information.

Thats why Id like leaks to be far fewer and better thought out. I don’t know who would decide this really though.

I think much of this essentially boils down to whether you think foreign policy must always involve realpolitik. i.e. even dubious methods need to be employed to defend the nation. The trouble about this perspective is that the people making those decisions aren’t necessarily mandated by the people.

It also kind of asks the question, do you think the world can change? Or will the world always be stuck in nationalism, wars, corruption, where the best thing to do is to at least make our corner of the world an alright place…

1) A private was able to access all this information, admitedly it is information that is classified as “secret” – the lowest level of secrecy in the US system, regardless, it is mind baffling that someone whos primary task is to map IED’s was able to access the information that has been released.

2) The private decided to come clean to someone he randomly met on the internet

3) The person who “narked” on the private is himself a computer hacker and is far from being a “law abiding citizen”

I also think there is a possibility that the CIA had prior knowledge of the leakage of the documents and allowed it to happen, simply because there is stuff that has been released that has been beneficial to US (this is obviously an unlikely scenario, regardless i think there is a tiny chance). This is an unlikely scenario as i think that while it would be quite easy for the USA to shut down wikileaks, it would be impossible for them to stop the information coming out onto the internet.

Sarah Palin and all the conservatives calling for the beheading of Assange are shockingly naive to the bigger picture, that Assange is not the problem, he is the symptom of the problem. The problem lies within the ranks/systems of the USA that allowed the dispersion of all this information.

To address DPF, the assasination of Assange is quite unlikely to happen at this stage, he actually has widespread governmental support from anti-US governments and the USA themselves have nothing to gain by assasinating him (and everything to lose in the public arena). Logically speaking, an alive and well Assange is a higher value target in terms of extracting information from him to get to the absolute source of all his material. Also, intelligence agencies will be well aware that there will be a multidude of people ready to step in and fill the vacuum left by Assange should he be assasinated.

The plot thickens with Zbigniew Brzezinski suggesting that Wikileaks may not be what we think it is.

And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments.

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of the level of secrecy and clandestine power that the current rulers of the US bestow upon themselves.

I think they’d have a lot of problems with most of the Federal bureaucracy – not just the CIA/NSA nexus that has been the obsession of the Left for the last few decades. But in regards to dealing with foreign countries it looks like Secretary Gates has answered that himself:

“How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not.” – John Adams

Which leads to the eternal and obvious question:

We can’t just blindly trust those in power.

Indeed. From an anarchist position (which I understand Assange leans towards), even representative democracy is blindly trusting those in power – and they are dismissive of the idea that regular and frequent elections of such representatives act as a check. Occasionally I’m inclined to agree with them!

From a more pragmatic viewpoint I don’t have a problem with diplomats keeping their private conversations private as long as I’m sure that their efforts are being directed by the politicians I voted for towards publicly proclaimed objectives that I approve of – such as the de-nuclearisation of North Korea.

I don’t need Wikileaks to show me that Western politicians and diplomats are “secretly” engaged in selling the North Korean people for a mess of pottage when the resulting actions will be self-evident – such as yet another food/fuel deal for another farcical “agreement”.

I also note that the watermelons (for example toad) have been horribly inconsistent if we are to remember their defense of the “Climategate” emails. This does not suprise me at all.

What is suprising to me is the level of amazement and disdain flowing from the general public upon the revelations of the USA spying on its allies. To my understanding this was old news. It is important to note that this type of activity is common within the international intelligence community.

I accept that there has to some limitations on freedom of speech – it is not acceptable in a civilised society to permit jackbooted thugs to march around cities chanting “Kill the niggers, kill the Jews”, for example. I think the limitation on freedom of speech should be set at the level where the speech actively encourages violence against or victimisation of an individual or group, or where it defames an individual. Another area where I accept some constraint on freedom of speech is in electoral campaigning, for the purpose of ensuring that no party or candidate gains an advantage simply because they have more money to spend.

I note your comment about betrayal. You presume there has been some form of contract, trust or confidence between Assange and those he has leaked. I think you presume wrongly.

For those making the assertion of psychopathy/sociopathy, your quote, “1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,” says Assange. It’s a chilling statistic, but then he states: “On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya.”, does not support the assertion. (Although it may give partial support depending upon other facets of Assange’s personality.)

Furthermore, what are the long run consequences? That is to say, did the exposure of corruption and the backlash against it lead to fewer costs to society in the long run than there would otherwise have been had the corruption been left unmentioned?

I suggested several days ago that many who were thrilled with Assange initially, might start developing conspiracy theories when some of the leaked information turned out to contradict lovingly held positions.

Muhahahaha – and here we go…

The plot thickens with Zbigniew Brzezinski…..

Three guesses as to which intelligence service in particular Mr Brzezinski is referring to…

According to his own biography on his Wikipedia site Assange is described as a mathematics and physics student and computer programmer who once held to lofty hacking ideals that ethically forbad him from crashing servers or releasing hacked information.
Now Assange has set himself up as the moral compass of the World, he who dares tell a porky shall be exposed because the great moralist has spoken, he who has not sinned.
This supposed massive leak of previously confidential files is a Wikiyawn, dull, petty, tabloid fodder than can neither be denied or verified.

Assange is a narcisist and egomaniac. Only an idiot would think that Assange’s and Wikileak’s intentions are honourable. Only when he leaks documents from Venezuela, Iran and Soros will I start to even contemplate that their intention is nothing else than to destroy the West.

… I think the limitation on freedom of speech should be set at the level where the speech actively encourages violence against or victimisation of an individual or group, or where it defames an individual. ..

So, Toad, you would give some state tribunal power to decide when an individual is defamed – or do you think present defamation law is sufficient? If the former, would they make decisions in advance of publication, or merely dole out punishment later.

What criteria would you set, Toad, for deciding what “actively encourages violence”?

Could you say anything so long as you didn’t actually suggest violence?

Would you allow debate of capital punishment or defence of parental smacking of children under these criteria? And if so, how?

Its interesting that so much is considered to be a yawn and already common knowledge. If so why not announce it publicly?
i.e. China: “Sorry North Korea, if the US/South Korea decides to invade we’re not bothered.”
US: “By the way UN delegates, we’re spying on you” (UK: “so are we”, China: “and us”, “yep”, “us too”…)

Tom, if you are finding out interesting confirmations that inform the debate on various issues, do you not have some support for the concept of leaks?

toad, the difference between information and propaganda is not as clear cut as you imply. Propaganda can be factual, it’s just the way it’s used (or what information ISN”T used) that makes it propaganda.

Electoral finance legislation is not about restricting information, it is about restricting the amount of money that can be spent disseminating propaganda.

Toad trusts those in power, either within a particular party, group or government, to define the line that divides information from propaganda. Moreover, he’s implying that we can trust him and the Left in making that definition.

Not that I want to plunge down the rabbit hole of post-modern relativism but to paraphrase a favourite lefty saying: One man’s information is another man’s propaganda

Fortunately the ongoing development of communications technology has made the deployment and gathering of information so cheap that the money aspect may become moot.

I also note that the watermelons (for example toad) have been horribly inconsistent if we are to remember their defense of the “Climategate” emails.

I don’t recall saying much at all about the Climategate emails, and what I do recall saying was to condemn the spin being put on them by the climate cranks in their attempt to discredit reputable scientists – not to condemn whoever released them.

It wasn’t an insecure SIPRNet that created the “perfect storm” that allowed Private Bradley Manning to dump the State Department cables to Wikileaks. It was the failure of our government to apply standard IT practices in a theater of war.

There is – and as other posters have pointed out, when Assange and Wikileaks start posting secret documents from the military and diplomatic files of China, Russia, North Korea and so forth, I’ll accept that they truly believe in freedom of speech.

Until then I’m simply resigned to accepting that Assange and company are on the side of those who wish to hurt me and my society.

Make no mistake about the hypocrisy of the Left. It now joins the side of Assange, as many Leftists have joined the side of militant Islamicists and for the same reason – because the enemy is the West.

This whole fiasco smells like a controlled leak. Nothing major has come out, and what seen the light has it’s benefits to most sides. If any secret service outfit wanted this guy, he would have had the needle behind the ear long ago.
However, a good public hanging never did any attention seeker any harm.

Speaking of post-modernist thinking, here’s the man himself explaining some of his reasons on his archives:

The truth is not found on the page, but is a wayward sprite that bursts forth from the readers mind for reasons of its own. I once thought that the Truth was a set comprised of all the things that were true, and the big truth could be obtained by taking all its component propositions and evaluating them until nothing remained. I would approach my rhetorical battles as a logical reductionist, tearing down, atomizing, proving, disproving, discarding falsehoods and reassembling truths until the Truth was pure, golden and unarguable. But then, when truth matters most, when truth is the agent of freedom, I stood before Justice and with truth, lost freedom. Here was something fantastical, unbelievable and impossible, you could prove that (A => B) and (B => C) and (C => D) and (D => F) Justice would nod its head and agree, but then, when you turned to claim your coup de grace, A => F irrevocably, Justice would demur and revoke the axiom of transitivity, for Justice will not be told when F stands for freedom. Transitivity is evoked when Justice imagines F and finding the dream a pleasurable one sets about gathering cushions to prop up their slumber. Here then is the truth about the Truth; the Truth is not bridge, sturdy to every step, a marvel of bound planks and supports from the known into the unknown, but a surging sea of smashed wood, flotsam and drowning sailors. So first, always pick your poetic metaphor, to make the reader want to believe, then the facts, and — miracle! — transitivity will descend from heaven, invoked as justification for prejudice.

Do we have here any experts in Dirrida or Foucault who can explain this statement?

scrubone>The man is a fool, but there’s zero doubt – he is not a rapist.

I think it’s an arguable and interesting point. Is there informed consent if you withhold information that, if it was known, would cause a partner to decline sex with you? Such as having a sexually transmitted disease, for instance. Sweden might just be an early adopter of a reasonable law.

However there is an irony that Assange is supposedly in favour of free access to information, but will rely on secrecy in his private life if it gains him a bit of casual sex.

Why is it always the ACT Party supporters who want the state to go around murdering people without trial?

I am NOT an ACT Party supporter! Quite the opposite. And who said anything about murdering without trial?

The very fair point has been made that Kenyan corruption should have been exposed regardless of the negative consequences. Well it depends. If the documents revealed a bunch of names that should not have been revealed, and they all got killed, that’s a very different thing from a more general revelation of corruption that caused riots or something. So context is everything. One would hope it was simply the latter, though even so, Assange was rather cavalier about his response to it.

The primary role of government is to protect its citizens, and that requires secrecy in some instances. Of course, most people, given a free-for-all of of such secret information would not act on it in a harmful way, but usually the risks of that evil minority outweighs the right to total freedom of information. Assange does not understand this at all, which makes him very very dangerous. If he has proven to have cost innocent people their lives, then justice should be done on him.

Well as I see it, Assange’s passage say “truth is relative to the people in power”. So despite being able to present a chain of logic about the existence of an absolute truth from principles, one finds that actually the final step is decided by some other power that makes its own rules, that despite the concept of absolute truth being presented, it does not exist.

A possible analogy might be around how open information is important from an individual’s perspective when arguing to limit the power of government, and then extrapolating this for open information in international affairs — but then finding out that, NO, international relations is a special case where governments do not need their power checked…

“1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,” says Assange. It’s a chilling statistic, but then he states: “On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya.”

Tom, if you are finding out interesting confirmations that inform the debate on various issues, do you not have some support for the concept of leaks?

As with all things I have to weigh the costs vs. the benefits on a case-by-case basis.

Benefits:Interesting confirmations, especially when they involve the lip-smackingly delicious idea of being able to throw this in the face of all those naive or disingenuous lefties (and some paleo-conservatives) who have long held the “alleged” Iranian nuclear weapon and missile program as nothing more than the fantasies of wingnut Islamophobes and warmongers.

Costs:
The destruction of the whole process of containing Iran – as potential allies clam up on what they’ve found out and refuse to cooperate for fear of reprisals.

Tough choice – but in this case I would have preferred the information to remain unattributed and deniable because it’s public revelations that will not help the public resolution. It’s a pity that Assange did not also conclude this when he saw this information and that of the North Korean discussions.

——–

Barend – I think that’s already been covered/linked several times in this thread.

I’m not prepared to guess on Assange’s motives or morals, I merely pasted a quote of his that shows he is aware of some of the consequences. I’m glad I’m not him, but that’s because of my own morals. I’m equally glad I haven’t been in a position to decide to declare war on anyone, as per your subsequent question – those people can live with the consequences of their own actions, as I do with mine. I guess my own opinion of Assange and wikileaks is overall negative though.

I think from that quote I posted that he shares culpability for those deaths, much as those responsible for going to war with Iraq share culpability for the deaths incurred from those decisions. While Bush and Blair may not have killed anyone directly, their actions led to many deaths. Same for Assange. It would be hard to argue that he never anticipated any deaths resulting from his actions.

The Stockholm Criminal Court issued an international arrest warrant for Assange two weeks ago on probable cause in that case, saying he is suspected of rape, sexual molestation and illegal use of force in separate incidents in August. He could be sentenced to two years in prison if convicted.

If a lowly private in the American Army could leak all of these documents do you really think that the other governments didn’t know all of this information? It seems on one hand Mossad et al are super mercenaries and yet on the other hand completely useless as spies incapable of finding out this information on their own.

If something is so secret that it is going to cause political unrest and potentially deaths; then the originators of this information should perhaps not write it down if they’re incapable of protecting it. Again we seem to see on one hand that some governments need this incredible secrecy/power to do what ever they like but then aren’t held to account when they were blasé with the protection of this information.

The US government stuffed up. It should apologise to the nations it offended and get on with it. All the other nations will have exactly the same information about anyone else of importance.

Pfc. Bradley Manning was in intelligence. Some great intelligence operatives have been low rank but with access to information – a butler in an Istanbul embassy, housekeepers, clerks. Yes the system was too open, but you can bet it’s not now.

“Do we have here any experts in Dirrida or Foucault who can explain this statement?”

It’s impenetrably poetic of course, especially defining the transitive relationship between “A” and “F”reedom when he doesn’t define “A” . The way I interpreted it was basically a long-winded form of the Is/Ought problem: an exhaustive taxonomy of truths (What Is) will not lead to Truth (What Should Be)… but I could be wrong.

The newspaper cited police sources who said they knew where Assange was staying and had his telephone number. It added that it was believed he was in southeast England.

The international police agency Interpol this week issued a “red notice” to assist in the arrest of Assange, who is wanted in Sweden on suspicion of sexual crimes, but Britain’s Serious Organized Crime Agency (Soca) so far has refused to authorize this, the paper said.

Citing unnamed sources, the Independent said Soca needed clarifications about the European Arrest Warrant issued by Swedish prosecutors but it described the delay as technical.

I havent had time to look at the details of the Iran leaks but I do admit some wriggle room would seem to be appropriate in diplomatic situations, I mean its part and parcel of diplomacy, which is preferable to outright military action. I guess even in personal relations its not always the best idea to be completely open all the time…

I support isolated leaks by individuals on topics which clearly would influence the public about a given decision where there is a cover-up of some kind. The wide release of operational info seems too indiscriminate not to lead to some ‘collateral damage’. And while Assange (like the US military) seems to justify such collateral damage, I think its a slippery slope.

Ive probably been one to underestimate the threat of Iran or North Korea and still do. I mean its so hard to judge how much is propaganda from one side, posturing on the other. I mean Pakistan, Israel and China have nuclear weapons, why shouldn’t Iran? The failed invasions of Iraq and Afgahanistan have led me to wonder whether the best policy is for countries to be prepared militarily but only to react to clear aggression. Can you military enforce stability or democracy in a country that doesn’t have it and where many people don’t want you there in the first place?

Cause they deserve to be Outed. If they operated in an honest and trasparent way and didnt bullshit half the problems governments create wouldnt occur.

That why anyone who believes in indiviual freedom and that the State should deliver the mail defend the shores and get the F…. out of the GOOD citizens lives ahould be supporting Wikileaks and every organisation like it

We can make up our own minds but the more info we get from the more sources the more we can triangulate to get to the truth

And folks The TRUTH is not want your government wants you to know. And the evidence for this is overwhelming so dont ask me for sources.

Also pissant countries like Britain (the most aggressive country in world history), and France.

So yes. Why not Iran.

Iran in fact has ample justification for having them because they were invaded in very recent times, by a neighbouring country supported by the West. To my knowledge Iran, formerly Persia, has not invaded another country for well over 2000 years. Their track record is far better, obviously, than most Western countries. So I would definitely trust Iran with nukes before the US and UK. Who do you trust? Someone with without a criminal record at all, or Clayton Weatherston? I’d trust the former.

“Until then I’m simply resigned to accepting that Assange and company are on the side of those who wish to hurt me and my society.”

Who wishes to hurt you and your society? The Iranians? The Chinese? The Cubans? Robert Mugabe? Come on. Substantiate your statement.

I’d say its more the opposite case. Americans have fucked with Iranians far more than the other way round, and the West has fucked with China, whereas China has never hurt the West.

Just incredible. The US has 700 military bases around the world and its ‘national’ interests have no territorial limit. Don’t you think that other people have ample reason to consider the West as out to hurt them and their societies?

“It’s all rigged, I mean the whole conversation’s rigged,” Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) complained today on the Senate floor — without realizing that someone had left the C-SPAN microphones hot.

An aide quickly alerted staff and had the mics shut off, but not before viewers heard Bennet’s disembodied voice griping about the top-down management of the lame-duck agenda. The Daily Caller first reported it without identifying the Senator, but Bennet later stood by his remarks

Bloody aides wanting to keep the secrets of those in power! Stalinists I tell you!

Zhumao>Who wishes to hurt you and your society? The Iranians? The Chinese? The Cubans? Robert Mugabe?

Most victims of the Iranian government are Iranians. Most victims of the Chinese government are Chinese… Probably in excess of 50 million of them over the last 60 years. Most victims of the Cuban government are Cubans. Most victims of Robert Mugabe are Zimbabweans.

Why is it that the governments of these countries hate their own people so much?

I must say I appreciate the revised Zhumao Construct 2.0 – especially with the new adaptive features using words such as fuck and cocksuckers (such a refreshing change from the quaint and faux politeness of ….please check back later for more comments. Thank you).

Others on the thread who inquire will get a substantiation as my day allows. However, I see no need to substantiate that statement to the idiot who quoted with glowing approval the other day, the following statement:

“So if we want to be free and independent, and if we want to retain our humanity and our national and societal sense of dignity, then we must mobilise in defense of North Korea” – Alexander Dugin

Here in the free West we describe that sort of thing as having Jumped The Shark, we change the channel and the series is cancelled due to dismal ratings.

DavidP. Most Chinese like their government (well over 80% according to Western researchers). Most Iranians also support their current government because that is the government they voted in.

And even if Chinese and Iranians did not like their respective governments, even less are they happy with the idea of being invaded, embargoed, and subverted by the West. In fact Western pressure and arrogance, makes the people of these countries (and others) more pro-government, not less.

Probably in excess of 50 million of them over the last 60 years.

The greatest decrease in mortality in history and the greatest increase in life expectancy happened under Mao’s China. Fifty million is a figure pulled from your asshole.

Alexander Dugin, a former aeronautical engineer, is a well respected intellectual in Russia, and is close to Putin. Far from a fringe character I believe. I don’t agree with some of what he says, but what he does say deserves attention and analysis. And his comments on why all freedom loving people should defend North Korea, if not in deed, but at least in word, is right on the button.

suggest that the Great Chinese Famine which was a result of forced collectivisation and targeted at Mao’s enemies alone lead to the deaths of up to 45 million Chinese. Toss in a few million killed in purges at that time, murdered in the Cultural revolution, and crushed by tanks in Tianenmen Square and you’re easily at 50 million Chinese victims of Communism.

Why? The national police chief gives his views of law enforcement: “Don’t say it is wrong of them to beat up bad persons: if in anger they beat someone to death, then so be it”. And Mao himself said he was happy to see ten percent of the peasant population killed in order to collectivise. Looks like he succeeded.

These people are just evil thugs who treated ordinary Chinese like shit. Mao was also a serial pedophile. It’s nice that they’ve mostly been consigned to the dustbin of history. But why are you defending them, and even using the name of the world’s greatest mass murderer as part of your posting name? What do you have against ordinary Chinese people that you excuse their murderers?

But you don’t see the irony that Chinese pressure and arrogance makes the people of Taiwan more pro-Taiwanese, not less.

Most Taiwanese, their government included consider themselves part of China. All Western nations consider Taiwan part of China. So your analogy makes no sense. Taiwan belongs to China, and China has the right to use any means, if required, to ensure that this remains the case.

Arguably, Stanislav Petrov saved more lives than any other in history; by following his instinct and refusing to obey standing orders and training – during a false-positive multiple nuclear missile strike warning in the Soviet Union in 1983.

So you see the so called ‘massacres’, in reality excess deaths are large precisely because they are relative to China’s record under the same government in reducing mortality in the years leading up to the GLF. That of course does not make the GLF less tragic, but to equate ‘excess’ deaths as a ‘massacre’ is simply absurd.

China only added less than 100 million to her population in the century preceding the victory of the revolution.
In the 26 years of Mao’s rule, population almost doubled. Chinese liked to have many kids, both before and after the revolution (although in the 1950s population control was encouraged for limited periods).

So why did China’s population increase so dramatically under Mao? There can only be one answer. A dramatic decline in mortality, especially infant mortality.

Zhumao>Mao was also a serial pedophile. If you cannot verify this (or at least quote your sources -different from verifying of course), then I have to assume you, davidp, are a dishonest person.

Easy…

“If some close observers thought Mao was insane and a pedophile in his later years, still inviting young girls and boys to his boudoir, Feigon finds no early childhood traumas that might explain it all”

But most accounts come from The Private Life of Chairman Mao: The Memoirs of Mao’s Personal Physician by Li Zhisui, a book you might not be familiar with since it is illegal to read it in China and no doubt the Great Firewall will stop you finding out about it using the internet. It can’t have been a lot of fun if you were a little boy or girl forced to have sex with Mao. Besides the obvious pedophilia aspect, Li reports that Mao’s gums oozed pus and of course he was noticably fat. Yuck!

Apparently the standard responses of Mao apologists are to argue that he was saving these children from the famine he’d created. And that having sex with 10-12 year olds might not technically be pedophilia if they’d hit puberty. But really… A defence that makes you want to vomit isn’t much of a defence.

I’m going to ignore the excuses you’ve given for man made famine, mass murder, and Chinese imperialist bullying of Taiwan. It’s like you’re trying to argue that Hilter was a nice bloke and WW2 was all Poland’s fault. But I do wonder what it is about communist governments and starving their own people. China. The Soviet Union. North Korea. And Cambodia. See a pattern here?

Anyway, it’s nice to know Kiwiblog isn’t blocked in China. I lost contact with a Chinese friend when the Chinese government decided that she shouldn’t be allowed to access Blogger or Facebook. Bit humiliating for a women in her 30s with an MBA to be treated like a small child. But at least she wasn’t molested as a child by a fat old man with pus oozing out of his gums, so at least things are improving.

toad, … Since the Green Party voted to criminalise free speech in New Zealand, isn’t it lucky that Assange isn’t in this country and liable to be locked up by the state.

Indeed, it is lucky, because I suspect to their discredit both the previous government and the current one would have attempted to do exactly that if Assange had come here.

But freedom of speech doesn’t equate to freedom to buy an election. I believe that one legitimate constraint on freedom of speech is to ensure elections are a contest of policy, not a contest of money.

Other constraints I would place on freedom of speech relate to defamation, and to incitement to violence or victimisation against individuals or groups. I think New Zealand law is reasonably adequate in that regard.

Paedophile or not, Mao Tse Tung was a criminal and murderer of the highehst order. The Chinese tyrant was a villain on par with Stalin and Hitler, a barbaric monster.

That was quite a good comment, Manalo.

What do you think, Zhumao? In Russia, Stalin’s excesses have been widely acknowledged, how’s China coming along re: Mao on this issue? Or was it all reasonable in the context of the times?

Because of what’s happened to Russia since Peter the Great, Russians have a very ironic sense of humour, it’s been drilled into them for generations. Very interesting national psychology. How, really, do the Chinese treat Mao in their own minds? They know what happened, they lived it. Was it just a drop in the bucket for them or what?

“Apparently the standard responses of Mao apologists are to argue that he was saving these children from the famine he’d created. And that having sex with 10-12 year olds might not technically be pedophilia if they’d hit puberty. But really… A defence that makes you want to vomit isn’t much of a defence.”

Where do you get this standard ‘response’ from? There is no standard response, because this paedophilia claim, even by Mao’s enemies is not made, and today is the first time I have heard of it. Sex with many young women yes, that has been claimed by Dr Li, but sex with children no.

So what is your source for your so called ‘standard response’ you fucken liar?

Your pitiless reaction to the torture, starvation and murder of tens of millions of Chinese people is chilling.

You must really hate Chinese people.”

Then most Chinese must hate themselves, since so many of them admire Mao.

Don’t think you, as a white man, has the right to tell the Chinese people how to think. That is the height of arrogance.

Just because you swallow a book written by an extreme anti-communist in the pay of Chiang Kaishek’s son, and who has supported the splitting of China, as the gospel truth, does not mean the Chinese people have to. I might as well get you to accept a History of the US Imperialism by Ho Chi Minh.

Furthermore, the arrogance of white people is exposed. How much weight would white people give to a book on New Zealand history, or the American Civil War, or Tudo England, written by Li Xiaolong from Hubei province in China, who could only speak halting english. Yet Chinese are expected to acccept everything written by them by some so called academic who speaks bad Chinese?

Dikotter’s familiarity with the Chinese language is how he translates the title of another book on the GLF ‘mubei’ from simply tombstone into ‘wooden tomb’, the wooden part because there is a slight similarity to the character in the mu part. But even a five year old Chinese schoolkid would not make such an error.

Of course whites would dismiss the opinion of a Chinese academic who wrote a hypothetical work on New Zealand history if he could not distinguish the word ‘wood’ from ‘tomb’, but when a so called Western China expert cannot, the Westerners word is still taken as gospel.

Note how none of you has contradicted my facts. Because you can’t. Of course you can mention incidents of atrocities – but why are these recorded (if as reported by Dikotter). Because of course, they were isolated events, and were deemed criminal, and that is why they were reported to the authorities. These are public security records, and if you go into the police archives of any country in the world, you could easily portray that same country as hell.

There was no policy whatsoever to bury people alive. Of course anti-communist scholars ascribe any crime, or any death, in a communist regime, as murder.

“Your pitiless reaction to the torture, starvation and murder of tens of millions of Chinese people is chilling.”

Your no doubt pitiless reaction to the crimes of the British empire are even worse. Where is your compassion for 7 million Indians starved to death by Churchill? Where is your compassion for 300,000 Kenyans killed by the British in the 1950s – the equivalent to killing 20 million people in a country the size of China.

And what is your reaction to the murder of at least 50 million (at a minimum) colonial subjects of Britain, France, and other Western powers in the first half of the twentieth century alone, confirmed by none other than R J Rummel (someone reactionaries quote all the time when it comes to purported communist atrocities).

Somehow I think you’d be rather less enthusiastic if it were you and your family being tortured and murdered by Mao and his Communists. After all, for statists like you, as Stalin told us, those millions of people are just details, aren’t they.

How it is that I, a running dog of Capitalism, have infinitely more compassion, pity and empathy for the poor, poor people of China than you – presumably an ethnic Chinese.

Of course, using wat dabney’s reasoning, if famine, or disaster deaths under a regime equate to murder, then one of the most murderous regimes in the 20th Century would be New Zealand.

“The second wave of the global influenza pandemic came to Western Samoa on board an island trader, the Talune, on 4 November 1918. The acting port officer at Apia was unaware that there was a severe epidemic at the ship’s departure point, Auckland. As a result he allowed passengers ashore, ‘including six seriously ill influenza cases’. Within a week influenza had spread throughout the main island of Upolu and to the neighbouring island of Savai’i. Approximately 8500 people – a staggering one-fifth of the population – died.

Responsibility for the pandemic has been laid firmly at the feet of New Zealand. In 1918 Western Samoa was still occupied by New Zealand forces that had seized the German colony at the beginning of the First World War. In addition to not placing the Talune under quarantine, the New Zealand Administrator, Colonel Robert Logan, did not accept from the Governor of American Samoa an offer of assistance that may have reduced the heavy death toll. ”

New Zealand killing one-fifth of a population is equivalent to China killing 150 million.

So the New Zealand regime is 3three times as bad as Mao’s regime (even using just the ridiculous numbers by Dikotter)

wat dabney: Whites have ZERO compassion for Chinese. In fact the excess deaths caused to China by Western imperialism would run in the hundreds of millions. China’s life expectancy in 1949 was only 32. It only began to rise after the communists took over.

WHITES – you people forced us to buy your drugs to reverse a balance of trade in your favour. You put up signs in Shanghai Parks “No Chinese or dogs allowed” And British and American troops and gunships would murder Chinese people with impunity because right up until 1946, white foreigners were completely immune from Chinese laws.

December 2nd, 2010 at 4:08 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:52 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:02 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:09 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:11 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:13 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:32 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:09 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:14 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:24 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:34 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:40 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:43 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:45 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm

And comments like these ones (just two quick samples) don’t do you any favours either:

Pedophilia tends to be a pakeha thing.
So fuck off. White ‘compassion’ for Chinese does not exist.

You clearly have a personal interest in this thread and, indeed, in any Kiwiblog debate that touches on China issues. I’m curious to know why. Want to make a personal declaration so we can clear away any suggestion that someone else is pulling your puppet strings?

Zhumao, seriously – comparing the accidental deaths NZ caused in Samoa to the deaths attributed to Mao? Do you actually have a straight face saying that?

So you are saying Mao deliberately went out to sabotage his own economic policy, the GLF, and thereby got himself essentially demoted and put to pasture for four years? Of course the GLF deaths were accidental and Mao had to issue a self-criticism at the time for them. His colleagues basically shunned him to such an extent that Mao famously claimed that he felt like a ‘dead ancestor’

The deaths in Samoa of course, were caused by almost wilful negligence, and the New Zealand authorities did not bother seeking help to deal with the crisis because they were too proud and considered Samoan lives as not as important as white lives.

We feel no need to defend what are obviously unjust and wrong policies implemented by Western governments of the past (or now, even).

Yet you persist in attempting to justify Communism which murdered and oppressed millions of Chinese people.

Your call.

Obviously if someone attacked the West, most people here would defend the West. Just like I defend China, when she is attacked. Because China is continually attacked in the West, and demonised. Because the West hates any people or any country which does not accept Western hegemony.

Westerners hate the communists because China was a colony of the West’s up until 1949, and it is only when Mao came to power that China finally became truly independent.

So, because others are nationalistic and racist that justifies you being the same? Why can’t you rise above it and see it for what it is?
You’re obviously intelligent, but here you are defending Communism which brutalised and murdered tens of millions of Chinese people. That’s just incredible to me. What you’re professing is just so evil.

Every one of those Chinese people was a full person just the same as me and you. Yet you dismiss their murder like it was nothing, and all because of some supposed national greatness.

“but here you are defending Communism which brutalised and murdered tens of millions of Chinese people”

India has about 2.1 million child deaths a year, more than five times the number in China. One could thus say that China’s system saves 1.68 million children per year. Political freedom means nothing if you can’t even survive into early adolescence. On general life expectancy the eminent Indian economist Amartya Sen has said: “compared with China’s rapid increase in life expectancy in the Mao era, the capitalist experiment in India could be said to have caused 4 million excess deaths a year since India’s independence…India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame, 1958-61”

That decisive lead of China over India in life expectancy has continued right up to the present day. That’s 4 million x 60 years = 240 million excess deaths in India. Of course if I applied the immature reasoning of many on this thread to these matters , I would then say ‘democracy’ = Nazism.

So wat dabney, if I cannot defend communism because you claim it to be a murderous system, then surely anyone who defends bourgeois ‘democracy’ is just as reprehensible?

And here’s my just the facts, Ma’amrefutation of this nonsense, to which Zhumao could only splutter the following:

I attributed the statement to Madeleine Albright and said it was cold blooded. Which it is. When Albright was asked the question she did not argue against the figure of 500,000. So we must assume that she thought it to be true.

So the US did admit to the murder of 500,000 Iraqi children. That the figures, according to you, have been proven wrong does nothing to controvert my original point.

Muhahah! As I pointed out in the original thread about the sadly deluded US Secretary of State:

“An ignorant, leftist American journalist accepts a claim at face value because it’s a good “gotcha” question, and an ignorant and moronic left-wing Secretary of State also accepts the premise of the question – that’s Zhumao’s basis, and of course it connects the circle back to the likes of the Western Left.”

AND

If some dimwit in NZ admits to the police that he was smoking dope that later turns out to be oregeno he’s only guilty of being a dimwit.

Still, I can see how useful your mindset would be when it comes to signed confessions before the bullet to the back of the head. You have learned well from your masters.

Apologies to everybody else for the cut and paste, but when one is dealing with a cut and paste merchant like Zhumao – one whose opening line is almost always you have not refuted me on the facts, and who has no shame in simply repeating an already refuted “fact” when he thinks he can get away with it – there really is no point in dishing back to him what was already written.

Just like to say that Zhumao’s comments in this thread are most definetly the most disgusting, vile and inhumane comments i have ever read on a NZ blog. DPF should be ashamed of himself for allowing this state sanctioned murder supporting “person” to carry on spewing his hatred on here.

I have no idea how you sleep at night.

“pedophilia is mostly a pakeha thing” – Zhumao

GTFO you racist piece of shit; go back to the hole you crawled out of (and stay there this time).

Most Chinese i have met in my time have been very caring human beings, if Zhumao is in anyway representative of a significant portion of those that are coming into our borders then i will most definetly be voting for a party that supports closing the door.

GTFO you racist piece of shit; go back to the hole you crawled out of (and stay there this time).

Typical white hypocrisy. It is all OK to beat up on minorities for their overrepresentation in certain crimes, and their purported dysfunctions, but when the obvious is pointed out about whites, I am a racist piece of shit. Interestingly no one has bothered to deny the fact that most paedophiles tend to be white.

The presence and (god forbid) residency of people who share views like Zhumao is exactly what toad and his party have been dreaming about; i would not be suprised at all if toad and his comrades have made an effort to contact him in an effort to sign him up for the Green Party.

I have to say that I do enjoy all of Zhumao’s boilerplate language. The faux politeness (well, with Zhumao 1.0 anyway) and the emphatic assertion of argumentative victory – repeated also, because that makes the assertion more powerful. You can really see this guy during the Cultural Revolution; chest stuck out, berating people in some dingy room with the Little Red Book:

But thank you. I am pleased that you have basically shown that you do not have an argument. Your angry post is really just an admission of defeat
…
Thanks Tom Hunter: You have not been able to rebut me on a single point of fact. That of course is an implicit admission of defeat.

Then there are the dog references, always a good cultural symbol in China:

I look forward to your response – especially to the last point. I would appreciate a logical dismantling of my arguments, rather than a lot of barking. Thank you.
…
Tom Hunter: Thanks for your response – not so much barkings this time! Rather the whimpers of a beaten dog.
…
Most of those Taiwanses who seek independence are running dogs
…
His running dog brother
…
who was an arch-traitor and Japanese running dog

And of course the requests to check back later for the next exciting Zhumao episode

Please be sure to check back Mr Hunter. I can sense your wailing and gnashing of teeth! Will be back after dinner.

I will respond to the rest of your stuff soon –this thread will soon disappear off the home page –but please check back for my responses. Thank you.

Honestly, if this guy isn’t a professional apologist for ChiCom Party then he’s a survivor of the Maoist Self-criticism Sessions at Vic U.

Finally, for a really good laugh, take a look at this blog comment from “Wayne”, on a reasonably well-known, US right-wing blog – Legal Insurrection. The thread is on all the killing during the GLF – and what does the commentator say? Well you can all read it yourselves and be amazed at not just the identical “facts”, but the similarity of phrasing, cadence and even abuse that “Wayne” and “Zhumao” both have:

And the Chinese people revere Chairman Mao —especially those who lived through the 1950s and 1960s.
…
The country directly comparable to China of course is India – the largest so called ‘democracy’ (comparing the performance of Taiwan, a province of China, with a population of slightly more than 20 million with mainland China – is just manifestly stupid)
…
China’s life expectancy in 1976, at the time of Mao’s death, was already higher than what India’s is today
…
Literacy in China is well above 90%, in India it is about 50%.
…
Which of these two places would you choose for your own children if there were no other alternatives? Be honest now.

It’s almost as if Wayne and Zhumao were the same person. While that is possible it’s more likely that it’s a propaganda campaign coordinated by a central point, with Wayne, Zhumao and the rest as hired mouthpieces. Might be fun to run a google search on blogs that ran a “Mao Great Leap Forward” thread and see how many other “Wayne”’s and “Zhumao’s” turn up.

There is no point debating with a communism/facism sympathizer and state sanctioned murder supporter, please seek medication, i can only pray that god (in whatever shape or form) shows your poor soul mercy one day.

I seriously cannot believe the things you have said here to the extent that i think you yourself dont hold such views and are merely trying to flame up the discussion.

To my knowledge Iran, formerly Persia, has not invaded another country for well over 2000 years

You seem to claim here that the number of invasions a country is has made over a certain period of time are the only way to negatively judge that country.
So that would mean to you, say the US invasion of Grenada was worse than the say Stalin’s crimes in the 30’s
Although your later attacks on all things western contradicts that.

So why did China’s population increase so dramatically under Mao? There can only be one answer. A dramatic decline in mortality, especially infant mortality.

What a ridiculous statement
If population growth was any indication of human welfare then the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia would be the best places to live in the world.

Perhaps you are right (at least in the case of communism). Because communism is easy to defend because the facts are on our side.

Note that the US even in the past 10 years caused the deaths of far more innocent civilians than China. Therefore Michael Tan, I suggest anyone who supports the US likewise “please seek medication, i can only pray that god shows your poor soul mercy one day.”

Tom Hunter –yes, my stuff is boilerplate, and you are a literary genius –happy now?

someone like Zhumao is just as guilty and culpable as the person pulling the trigger (or witholding the grain) from all those poor, innocent people.

If that is the case, anyone who defends New Zealand’s historical record, is just as guilty as the authorities who witheld timely medical care from Samoans, thereby causing 1/5 of Samoans to be die (equivalent of 100 to 150 millino chinese at the time?)

You use the term “whites” for European Westerners. Is that typical in China? I always thought Marxism was supposed to be non-racial, and certainly at the beginning it was in the Soviet Union, but fell apart as Stalin and his mates hammered peoples like the Ukrainians then waged virtual genocide on small minorities such as the Chechens, Crimean Tatars, and Volga Germans.

Many Chinese have very pale skins – often whiter than that of many, even most, Europeans.

I always thought of “whites” as a European classification. Do Chinese today use this as a term for Westerners?

I regard classification by skin colour as illogical, when such colour is determined by latitude and need for the skin at any latitude to be the optimum shade betweeen white and black for processing the correct amount of vitamin D from sunlight.

If we must have races, language and culture and perhaps physical appearance (also heavily influenced by latitude and weather over millennia) may be more appropriate. DNA is useful and shows “race” for what it is, the history of mingling of peoples that has occurred over tens of thousands of years and continues to occur.

After being stunned and coming close to spitting up my dinner (lovely NZ lamb), i just died of laughter from the above which nickb quoted.

I’m almost certain that Zhumao himself doesn’t hold the bizzaro position he claims to, he is merely trolling to get amusement, perhaps its the reincarnation of a poster we already know (maybe philu learnt how to write, read wikipedia for an hour and came back?)

Oooooh that pissed him off
So you say China is wonderful and are happy to take credit for the benefits of reforms since 1978 when it suits you, but now you say China is evil for putting Maoists in jail.

“That decisive lead of China over India in life expectancy has continued right up to the present day. That’s 4 million x 60 years = 240 million excess deaths in India. Of course if I applied the immature reasoning of many on this thread to these matters , I would then say ‘democracy’ = Nazism.”

Well, not really. Why do you compare China with India? The correct statistic would be to compare China to a Capitalist country, wouldn’t it? Not India, which enforced Socialism and self-sufficiency for decades after independence.

So how does infant mortality compare between Communist China and Capitalist countries, say between 1950 and 1970?

You see, however good China’s record might be on improving child mortality rates compared to India, it could still have done far, far better had the state allowed freedom and free trade. In other words, Communism cost China many millions of avoidable child deaths (and that’s on top of the mass murder, starvation and oppression which, for some reason, doesn’t seem to bother you.)

Do you not care that millions of people were murdered? Starved? Beaten? Oppressed?

I don’t understand your worship of state power at the expense of human lives.

Tom Hunter>I have to say that I do enjoy all of Zhumao’s boilerplate language

He’s interesting for the extreme racism and threatening imperialism. He’s also reflective of a country with a controlled press, censorship, limits on debate, and a personality cult. I’m fascinated by weird dictatorships and follow a couple of North Korea sites, and there is a lot of similarity between Zhumao’s debating style and the North Korean government’s bizarre press releases.

I give thanks that I’ve grown up in a country that wasn’t run by a group of thugs who bear a close resemblance to organised crime, and that my countrymen generally don’t exploit and terrorise each other.

Lastly, we have fun winning an easy argument that it is wrong to enslave and murder millions of people. But I think Zhumao enjoys the exchanges as well. I think he likes feeling humilated by “white” people. It gives him something to rage against, and takes his mind off the fact his own government doesn’t trust him to vote, surf the web, or read books of his own choice.

Of course when I use the term white, I mean it in its everyday understanding of the term – ie Caucasoid people from Europe. But in fact it is also a sociocultural term because I suppose I am talking of white in the more narrow North Western European culture – not really of Southern Europeans, or even North Africans such as Algerians (who can appear as white as even some nordics) -who here would not be sucked in if Zinedine Zidane said he was completely of European descent.

Race of course goes deeper than skin colour, the pale skin colour of east asians apparently resulted from a different mutation than that of whites, and yes, dark skinned South Asians are much more closely related to whites in spite of a greater difference in skin colour between whites and many south asians, than between whites and chinese say.

But of course when I say white, i mean it in its everyday context, and that is how one must use terms, otherwise understanding would be lost, in the itnerests of being a smart ass or a enhanced accuracy to a meaningless degree.

But yes, race is scientifically defined by how long ago you branched off from a common ancestor – ie you degree of relatedness in the everyday meaning. Taking it even further that is how species are defined as being related or not, not from morphological similarities and similarity in skin colour (convergent evolution).

But of course because humans branched off from one another not that long ago, inherent genetic differences are minute, and I never said otherwise – differences in criminality, poverty, life expectancy – have sociocultural explantations.

Mortality rates by country. Note that Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” warrants a comment of its own as Chinese life expectency plummets

I never claimed otherwise. I was talking of overall trends. If I put you in charge of a country prone to famine (there have been god knows how many famines in China over the past 200 years and one in the 1920s killed more proportionally than what is even claimed for the GLF), and internationally isolated, would you be able to guarantee that you would not fuck things up somewhere along the line and a lot of people die. Because of course China is a big country, and you go off road a bit and millions will die.

That is a good video though. It shows that China only began to progress in life expectancy and per capita earnings after 1949. After 1949 we had a very bad period – the GLF. But prior to 1949, China had gone through basically 100 years of conditions as bad as if not worse than the GLF. And China has not had a famine for half a century now. The problem of basic food and clothing for China’s population has essentially been solved. For a population of 1.3 billion, in a land with 1/6 the arable land of the US.

The problem of basic food and clothing for China’s population has essentially been solved. For a population of 1.3 billion, in a land with 1/6 the arable land of the US.

Yea… I recall reading an article a few years ago talking about how China was now refusing food aid, in spite of internal conditions being unchanged. Maybe things are different now…

But nice to see that your authoritarian government has solved the problem. Of course, I do recall hearing the personal testimony of someone who survived the last one, which was caused by exactly that same government.

Why do you compare China with India? The correct statistic would be to compare China to a Capitalist country, wouldn’t it?

That is ridiculous. Because China was way way way behind Western countries in development in 1949. The West had been sucking China dry up to that time. China at the time had zero industrialisation. Surely when comparing performance of two runners they have to start from the same starting line.

But certainly we can still compare. China’s rise in life expectancy during the Mao years was the most rapid in history. So even compared to performance of Western nations, China has done well. Refer link to Yale University study on this.

You did not, but a lot of people of course point to Taiwan and say ‘look how well Taiwan has done compared to China’

But this is unfair. The communists had a country with zero level of industrialisation, and with appalling levels of literacy and life expectancy. Also a feudal land ownership system which unless destroyed would indefinitely hobble any attempt at industrialisation. Also of course a population of 450 million compared to about 15 million on Taiwan at the time (ruling Taiwan is the equivalent of running Shanghai).

Taiwan in the late 1940s was about the most industrialised place in Asia. Admittedly this was brought about by the Japanese who had ruled the place for half a century. Thus Taiwan had already a half century head start on China. In addition to this Taiwan’s population was highly educated, in fact the most highly educated in Asia after Japan, with literacy rates approaching 70%.

Thus comparing the performance of Taiwan vs mainland China is unfair.

You have to compare like with like. That is why I brought to your attention the India vs China comparison. Both India and China came out from long periods of foreign domination, had similar populations, similar proportions of the population who were rural, similar degree of industrialisation, life expectancy, and literacy. So when look 30 years later, 60 years later, we can see one country has performed better at improving the lives of its people than the other. And that country is China by a country mile.

So when look 30 years later, 60 years later, we can see one country has performed better at improving the lives of its people than the other. And that country is China by a country mile.

Last I checked, India doesn’t have gulags and China does. Are you going to argue that’s what makes China better for it’s people, or are you going to claim that it doesn’t count? Because you’re never going to make anyone here believe that it’s ok to hold thousands of people in harsh conditions just because they disagree with the government.

Because you’re never going to make anyone here believe that it’s ok to hold thousands of people in harsh conditions just because they disagree with the government.

Yeah? Where are these thousands held for disagreeing with the government. Even that Jung Chang author of that terrible book “Mao the unknown story” regulary visits China, and I have even taken in her book Wild Swans from Hong Kong and given to my wife to read (that one was actually not a bad book). A guy Hu Jia wrote a book calling the premier a fake artist, a fraud – -ok he is harrassed a little, but still he is not jailed and the authorities are trying to pay him off to shut him up.

As for incarceration rates, America’s is about seven times that of China’s. China’s is lower than NZ’s I think. So don’t go there.

One in eight american blacks have been behind bars. Wherease the incarceration rate of Tibetans is lower than that of ethnic Han (refer Barry Sautmann’s work). Of course many tibetans are still nomadic and that makes it harder to commit crime, and get arrested, but still the difference in the condition of China’s minorities compared to that of America and Australia’s aboriginal populations are instructive.

“That is ridiculous. Because China was way way way behind Western countries in development in 1949. ”

No, it’s not ridiculous. It’s the trend that important, not the absolute values. Capitalist countries hugely improved the living standards of everyone, without oppressing the entire population and murdering them by the millions.

But here’s the real point: suppose Mao had been a Western general who had imposed that regime on China and implemented the same oppression, murder and mass starvation. Do you really think you would be here now defending him and telling us how wonderful he was? Of course not: you’d recognise him for what he was – one of the greatest and most evil mass murderers in history.

Because that’s what your argument comes down to: sheer racism. For some reason you feel it necessary to defend the greatest oppressor and murderer of Chinese people in history, simply because he himself was Chinese.

Britain controlled China’s customs service up to the 1930s I think – for her own advantage of course.

But in the context of the current point, so what?

Note I tend to use Western sources to substantiate my arguments. Even anti-communist soures.

Sure, you cherry pick what agrees with you. But that’s because the west is free, and people have always been free to point out the failings and successes of their enemies. Communist countries have a tendency to not allow criticism. I know people who’ve been to China, and watched the “news” there – it mainly consisted of “what the great leader did today to advance the Chinese people”.

in fact I believe it was even illegal for Americans to engage with China during the early years of communist rule

True, but wasn’t it illegal to even leave China during those early years, something that has never applied in the USA. There are no stories of border guards shooting people trying to leave the US.

I know people who’ve been to China, and watched the “news” there – it mainly consisted of “what the great leader did today to advance the Chinese people”.

This is where a liar can be spotted immediately. People have stereotypes of a place and fully believing them to be true, make up stories to impress people they have actually been to the place. But of course they are easily caught out by anyone who has actually been to the place.

Anyone who has really been to China, can tell you that what you have just said is a load of shit. And you can go on any Chinese newspaper website and see that Chinese news does not mainly consist simply of “what the great leader did today to advance the Chinese people”.

They are filled with entertainment news, scandal, gossip, and sports as much as any western newspaper.

Even Amnesty International source (prone to exaggerate about china) … Shows China’s incarceration rate as less than most western european countries.

So you swear at me, and quote how bad the US is.

But you’ve pointedly refused, repeat refused to acknowledge that the Chinese government locks people in secret hard labour camps, a fact established by multiple witnesses over decades. My point has never been about people locked up by courts after a proper trial, it’s about the government turning up and “vanishing” people. Secret police. Intimidation of Chinese societies own people.

Also hardly any Chinese knows of anyone jailed, let alone executed.
Of course they don’t. But I recieve an email list from christians who know dozens of people who have dissapeared, without trial. People who ask questions are intimidated, and lawyers are harrassed. Are you seriously, seriously telling me that this doesn’t happen?

Well, are you?

Oh, and I never made any claim that there were “thousands”. Reading around the internet, I’m seeing numbers in the millions.

This is where a liar can be spotted immediately. People have stereotypes of a place and fully believing them to be true, make up stories to impress people they have actually been to the place. But of course they are easily caught out by anyone who has actually been to the place.

Anyone who has really been to China, can tell you that what you have just said is a load of shit. …
They are filled with entertainment news, scandal, gossip, and sports as much as any western newspaper.

I never said that there was no “entertainment news, scandal, gossip, and sports”. My comment was about policial coverage – you pointedly avoided stating that chinese leaders are challenged in the press like they are here.

So now you’re saying that the people who’ve described chinese news to me havn’t even been there? How screwed up is that? I’ve known two people who’ve spent an entire year there! Where exactly were they during that time!? Heck, I’ve seen the English language chinese news here, and it’s just as they’ve described, no sign of any sort of holding the government to account whatsoever!

scrubone>But you’ve pointedly refused, repeat refused to acknowledge that the Chinese government locks people in secret hard labour camps, a fact established by multiple witnesses over decades.

Multiple witnesses AND Amnesty International. Whose web site incidentally is blocked in China.

“Hundreds of thousands of individuals were in administrative detention, including in Re-education through Labour camps, where they may be detained for up to four years without trial. Secret detention centres on the outskirts of Beijing, referred to as “black jails”, reportedly detained thousands of petitioners – individuals seeking redress from central authorities for a wide variety of grievances they were unable to resolve locally – before they were forcibly returned to their home towns. Detainees in administrative detention remained at high risk of torture and other ill-treatment. In November, the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) called upon China to “immediately abolish all forms of administrative detention”. ”

Are you fucking deluded? You cleared an entire continents of people, massacred them, pushed them aside to construct your societies. The genocide of the native americans was the greatest most sustained genocide in world history (refer excellent treatment of this topic by David Stannard).

One of the natures of our free society is that people are free to make up stories claiming that our society is bad. Do you get that in China? Not on your life.

I don’t doubt that a lot of Indians died. But you’ll find that most died because they were exposed to new diseases. Unfortunately not something that can be prevented. I notice you didn’t quote numbers – are you trying to claim that he beat Stalin and Mao? I’m seeing numbers approaching 100,000,000 for the two of those.

I don’t doubt that a lot of Indians died. But you’ll find that most died because they were exposed to new diseases. Unfortunately not something that can be prevented.

Read Stannard’s work. Just totally debunks this bullshit. And by the way Mao’s so called killings were also not deliberate. Yet you call him a murderer?

Also if the Europeans started seeing Indians dropping of disease, surely they should have stopped expanding, or even returned to Europe seeing the impact that they were having on the local population – not to do so of course after they became aware of things amounts almost to murder.

You totally fail to address 50 million (a minimum figure) killed by European colonialists (all capitalists of course) in the first half of the 20th century. Claimed by R J Rummel – an extreme anti-communist, darling of the right.

Seriously though, I’d love to know if you think they [gulags] exist in North Korea.

I really would not have a clue. But I truly doubt whether North Korea would have as many people behind bars, on a proportional basis, as does the United States. In fact I would put a substantial amount of money on it. Truly.

In any case North Korea is a sovereign state. It does not have to answer to the US, UK, or France, on how it runs its own affairs, let alone scrubone, or Zhumao.

So in the spirit of you asking me to comment obscure China things, I ask the same of you to justify imprisoning someone for eight years for importing lobster tails in plastic bags.

I’m not justifying it. It’s wrong and stupid.

But in spite of all that, those men had a public trial. We know where they are, even though clearly they shouldn’t be there.

Yet in China and *all* other communist countries, people disappear who disagree with the government. Yes, you think this is “obscure” and a lie, but what’s your source? Your government is hardly going to tell you this stuff is true, are they? Yet with all the personal testimony from all the people who have testified to their treatment by the Chinese government you still refuse to believe these camps exist.

Note that in this rather long, but enjoyable debate, I don’t think I have read of anyone taking me to task for my facts.

Just a whole load of huffing and puffing by the self-righteous Westerners filled with hatred and bitterness over the fact that China is now strong and independent. Of course most whites would rather China return to the days of the opium wars, where they could erect signs ‘no chinese or dogs allowed’ in areas of China, and kill chinese with complete and utter impunity.

In fact the last British gunboat in Chiense waters, the ‘HMS Amethyst’ was only driven out of China in 1949 – by Mao’s Peoples Liberation Army.

And yet the West thinks it can lecture China? Its as ridiculous as Japan lecturing Korea, or lecturing New Zealand on the seabed and foreshore, or the Urewera raids.

Zhumao>In the US people have been jailed for eight years for the ‘crime’ of importing lobster tails in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes.

As usual, Zhumao’s “facts” aren’t. In case anyone is interested, the US law prohibits the import of animal products that aren’t legal according to the laws of the exporting country. Which is quite respectful for other countries laws. The lobster parts involved in the case in question were essentially poached and bagged in bulk, whereas Honduras law requires lobsters to be obtained legally, be of a proper size, and be inspected and processed before being exported. Properly processed lobster parts are packaged in boxes rather than bagged up in bulk.

Eight years is probably a higher penalty than I would apply, but they obviously take animal poaching seriously. NZ’s biosecurity and fisheries protection laws would also take a dim view of this sort of crime, I suspect.

I really would not have a clue. But I truly doubt whether North Korea would have as many people behind bars, on a proportional basis, as does the United States. In fact I would put a substantial amount of money on it. Truly.

Let me tell you a thousand times. Let’s be clear here.

It doesn’t matter how many people are in jail, if they have had a fair trial. I am not talking about people who have committed a crime and ended up in jail, or even miscarriages of justice (as unfortunate as those are). I am talking about people abducted by government secret police because they have (for example) spoken against the government.

This is a well documented feature of communist regimes. And no, I don’t have a pro-communist source for that, I have multiple, independent sources.

I repeat, I am not talking about the justice systems of relative countries. I’m talking about secret, parallel systems used to punish those who have not committed a crime other than annoying a government official. Systems that have no publicity within the country, where injustice thereof is not in the public view.

And again I make the point that political leaders in China are not held to account by Chinese media, because that’s directly related to this point.

And again, I make the point that most communist countries have strongly controlled whether or not their citizens can leave, again, related to this point.

All this backwards and forwards about what the US does, or China does, within its own borders is a waste of time.

Because both are sovereign nations. No country is perfect. If the US wants to execute minors, people under 18 (something they did up until very recently), with a few 16 and 17 year olds (at time of crime) executed under Clinton and Bush, that is their business. If China does things you don’t like that is China’s business.

Just as China would not assume to give advice on how New Zealand should give back the seabed and foreshore to its rightful owners, neither should New Zealand lecture China on so called ‘human rights.’

China is not trying to impose her model on the West, and the West should not try and do same to China.

Zhumao, humor me further and justify why your land of greener pastures crusades against free speech, tooth and nail.

Specifically:

->Inciting subversion of state power
“”Anyone who uses rumor, slander or other means to encourage subversion of the political power of the State or to overthrow the socialist system, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years. However, the ringleaders and anyone whose crime is monstrous shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years.”

After that, explain to us the crackdown on people protesting at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, once your done doing this, justify the states blatant lie to these people, telling them to obtain permits, permits which served as nothing but an easy way for the state to identify and arrest the so called “culprits”.

If you wish to continue defending your so called free press, please defend/justify:

-> The arrest of ITV news reporter John Ray for giving coverage to a “Free Tibet” protest
-> The heavy censorship of the internet
-> The Foreign Correspondents Club of China (FCCC) releasing a statement:

“despite welcome progress in terms of accessibility and the number of press conferences within the Olympic facilities, the FCCC has been alarmed at the use of violence, intimidation and harassment outside. The club has confirmed more than 30 cases of reporting interference since the formal opening of the Olympic media centre on 25 July, and is checking at least 20 other reported incidents”.

I make the point that most communist countries have strongly controlled whether or not their citizens can leave, again, related to this point.

Its a piece of cake to leave China. A piece of cake. Are you misinformed or not?

It doesn’t matter how many people are in jail, if they have had a fair trial. I am not talking about people who have committed a crime and ended up in jail, or even miscarriages of justice (as unfortunate as those are).

So you make the rules here, Mr Arrogant White Man?

It does matter how many people are in jail, especially the appalling incarceration rates of minorities in the West (minorities in China are underrepresented in prison stats), shows the dysfunctions brought about by discrimination and racism, and the injustice in these societies in general. Just like unemployment rates, poverty, income, etc.

The Chinese have their society and will run their society according to their own rules. None of your business what China does. Not that you really care about real ‘human rights’. Human rights is just to advance Western interests in China, and push for western hegemony over China as in the past.

I’m hating to repeat myself, but of course Google is censored in China. So is Wikipedia. Your access to facts and views might not be the same as mine since your access to information is filtered by an unelected government. You should really have a word to them about that. Explain that you’re not a child and they can trust you to read and evaluate other people’s views.

have you answered my question about whether you’d support Assange if he leaked Chinese diplomatic and military operational comms?

Of course I fucken would not. And I have never said that Americans should not be fucked off with Assange. Personally, he seems to be a despicable sort of character. But I still think what he has done is a hoot. Although I am unhappy with China’s comments on North Korea of course – but then everyone talks behind other’s backs – even you would not want your best friend to hear everything you had ever said about him. So hopefully it is nothing. Go North Korea!

Just a whole load of huffing and puffing by the self-righteous Westerners filled with hatred and bitterness over the fact that China is now strong and independent. Of course most whites would rather China return to the days of the opium wars, where they could erect signs ‘no chinese or dogs allowed’ in areas of China, and kill chinese with complete and utter impunity.

That’s what they tell you in school, isn’t it?

Hey, man don’t get me wrong. Europeans have done some nasty stuff, no doubt. But no one wants to return to those days of the things you’re talking about here. Literally, ask anyone, anyone at all. Walk down the street and ask people. I guarantee that every single one of them will recoil in horror at the thought.

China is strong and independent – hey, that’s great. Seriously.

Unfortunately, your “strong and independent” government oppresses it’s own citizens. I know I can’t convince you of that, but from here it’s more than clear. (That’s the irony of the oppression within China, that the government has used the very oppression to convince it’s citizens it doesn’t exist.) That makes me sad. Really.

I knew a guy who was like you – bought up in China. He came to our church, and told people that there were no house churches in China, that there was no persecution. He genuinely believed that. The government told him that. He’d never seen a house church. Yet I know people who have been in those churches, who have prayed with Chinese believers and felt the fear that makes those believers hide from the government that should protect them.

And that’s the problem. The Chinese government actually *isn’t* strong, and it won’t be genuinely strong until China is free.

Once your done there, you can start to explain Chairman Mao’s policy of classifying geographic regions/ workers as either “rural” or “urban” and requiring workers to work through significant levels of red tape to get from one to the other. It is important to note that people were significantly punished for not strictly adhering to this chaotic policy, they were punished as they did not qualify for health care, employer provided housing or grain rations.

Also, how is it fair that, under Mao, the Urban population enjoyed a range of economic, social and cultural benefits whilst the rural population (comprimising the overwhelming majority of the Chinese population) were treated as second class citizens in a system that has continually been likened to apartheid.

As recently as the year 2000, the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy state that people of “Han” descent have a much easier ride into the urban centres than ethnic Tibetans. How is this fair Zhumao?

From wikipedia:

“The discrimination enforced by the hukou system became particularly onerous in the 1980s after hundreds of millions of migrant laborers were forced out of state corporations and co-operatives.[31] The system classifies workers as “urban” or “rural”,[24][32] and attempts by workers classified as “rural” to move to urban centers were tightly controlled by the Chinese bureaucracy, which enforced its control by denying access to essential goods and services such as grain rations, housing, and health care,[24] and by regularly closing down migrant workers’ private schools.[31] The hukou system also enforced pass laws similar to those in South Africa,[28][33] with “rural” workers requiring six passes to work in provinces other than their own,[31] and periodic police raids which rounded up those without permits, placed them in detention centers, and deported them.[33] As in South Africa, the restrictions placed on the mobility of migrant workers were pervasive,[31] and transient workers were forced to live a precarious existence in company dormitories or shanty towns, and suffering abusive consequences.[28] Anita Chan furthers that China’s household registration and temporary residence permit system has created a situation analogous to the passbook system in apartheid South Africa, which were designed to regulate the supply of cheap labor.[23][24][28][32][34][35]

The Chinese Ministry of Public Security justified these practices on the grounds that they assisted the police in tracking down criminals and maintaining public order, and provided demographic data for government planning and programs.”

Some stuff on Religous Freedom (from wikipedia):

“During the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), particularly the Destruction of Four Olds campaign, religious affairs of all types were persecuted and discouraged by the Communists with many religious buildings looted and destroyed. Since then, there have been efforts to repair, reconstruct and protect historical and cultural religious sites.[37] The US department of state criticizes in its human rights report 2005 that not enough has been done to repair or restore damaged and destroyed sites.[38]

The 1982 Constitution technically guarantees its citizens the right to believe in any religion.[39] However this freedom differs from the general concept of “freedom of religion” as recognised in the West, and is subject to restrictions.

Members of the Communist Party are officially required to be atheists.[40] While many party members privately violate this rule,[41] being openly religious can limit their economic prospects. All religious groups must be registered with the government. In addition, the government continually tries to maintain control over not only religious content, but also leadership choices.[citation needed]

The government tries to maintain tight control over all religions, so the only legal Christian groups (Three-Self Patriotic Movement and Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association) are those under the Communist Party control. It has been claimed by many that the teachings in the state-approved Churches are at least monitored and sometimes modified by the Party.[citation needed]”

Tibetan Buddhism

The government now claims the power to ensure that no new ‘living Buddha’ can be identified: the State Administration for Religious Affairs issued a 14-part regulation to limit the influence of the Dalai Lama. It declared that after 1 September 2007, “[no] living Buddha [may be reincarnated] without government approval, since Qing dynasty, when the live Buddha system was established.”.[44] When the Dalai Lama announced in May 1995 that a search inside Tibet had identified the eleventh reincarnation of the Panchen Lama who died in 1989, Beijing initiated its own search under the supervision of a senior Politburo member. The boy chosen by the Dalai Lama, and the abbot who helped with the choice, both vanished.[44] The child is believed to have spent the years since then under house arrest; all calls for visitation or for his release have been ignored. The Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama is branded a fake by loyalists.[45] Examples of the political controls exercised are:[46]

quotas on the number of monks to reduce the spiritual population
forced denunciation of the Dalai Lama as a spiritual leader
unapproved monks’ expulsion from monasteries
forced recitation of patriotic scripts supporting China
Restriction of religious study before age 18.
Monks celebrating the reception of the US Congressional Gold Medal by the Dalai Lama have been detained;[47] Drepung, once a large temple for over 10,000 monks, is now home to only 600; Beijing now restricts total membership in any monastery to 700
(wikipedia)

Falun Gong

“Arrests of protesting Falun Gong practitioners on Tiananmen Square.On 20 July 1999, the government banned Falun Gong and all ‘heterodox religions’, and began a nationwide crackdown of the popular new religious movement[48] following a demonstration by 10,000 practitioners outside the leadership enclave at Zhongnanhai on 25 April.[49] Protests in Beijing were frequent for the first few years following the 1999 edict, though these protests have largely been eradicated.[50] Practitioners have occasionally hacked into state television channels to broadcast pro-Falun Gong materials. Outside of mainland China, practitioners are active in appealing to the governments, media, and people of their respective countries about the situation in China.

According to Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ian Denis Johnson, the government mobilized every aspect of society, including the media apparatus, police force, army, education system, families and workplaces, against Falun Gong.[50] An extra-constitutional body, the “6-10 Office” was created to do what Forbes describes as “[overseeing] the terror campaign.”[51] The campaign was driven by large-scale propaganda through television, newspaper, radio and internet.[52] Human Rights Watch noted that families and workplaces were urged to cooperate with the government, while practitioners themselves were subject to various coercive measures to have them recant their beliefs.[53] Amnesty International raised particular concerns over reports of torture, illegal imprisonment including forced labor, and psychiatric abuses.[54][55]”
(wikipedia)

Political Freedom

The PRC is known for its intolerance of organized dissent towards the government. Dissident groups are routinely arrested and imprisoned, often for long periods of time and without trial. Incidents of torture, forced confessions and forced labour are widely reported (see #Torture, below). Freedom of assembly and association is extremely limited. The most recent mass movement for political freedom was crushed in the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the estimated death toll of which ranges from about 200 to 10,000 depending on sources.[63][64]

One of the most famous dissidents is Zhang Zhixin, who is known for standing up against the ultra-left.[65] In October 2008, the government denounced the European Parliament’s decision to award the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to Hu Jia, on grounds that it was “gross interference in China’s domestic affairs” to give such an award to a “jailed criminal.. in disregard of our repeated representations.”[66]

On 8 December 2008, two days before the release of Charter 08, Liu Xiaobo was arrested. He along with three hundred and two other Chinese citizens, signed Charter 08, a manifesto released on the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 2009), written in the style of the Czechoslovakian Charter 77 calling for greater freedom of expression, human rights, and for free elections.[6] As of May 2009, the Charter has collected over 9,000 signatures from Chinese of various walks of life.

Although the Chinese government does not interfere with Chinese people’s privacy as much as it used to,[67] it still deems it necessary to keep tabs on what people say in public. Internet forums are strictly monitored, as is international postal mail (this is sometimes inexplicably “delayed” or simply “disappears”) and e-mail.[68]
(wikipedia)

I could go on and on Zhumao, are you atleast beginning to see why we laugh at you (and pity you at the same time) for holding the position that you do?

Zhumao, humor me further and justify why your land of greener pastures crusades against free speech, tooth and nail.

Fuck you are an idiot. Different countries have their own rules. You might not like the rules of another country, the legal environment, the social environment, the culture, even the race of people. That is your right.

I don’t like the fact that some Islamic countries stone women for instance (if actually true). But in the end that is their business, as long as they don’t seek to impose the same sort of shit on other countries. It is only the West which continually seeks to boss other countries on so called ‘human rights’.

China has the right to run her own country the way she sees fit, and I believe the Chinese leaders, all highly qualified engineers, techncrats, are far better placed to do that than some Westerner with zero knowledge of Chinese culture or language shouting abuse from the sidelines.

China has managed things incredibly well, especially since the economic crisis. Her leaders are concentrating on jobs, and living standard – and they are doing a great job here.

If you handed the country to John Key, Cameron, or Obama to run, I scarcely think they would do any better – in fact they would probably completely fuck things up.

Well, start with repressing that Tianiman Square ever happened and move on from there.

I’m wondering if you think the Tianiman Square massacre was a hoax but I’m sure I’ll regret asking. It’s certainly not hard to show that the Chinese government is hiding it’s existence from it’s own people.

I don’t like the fact that some Islamic countries stone women for instance (if actually true).

Your deep seated distrust of the western media is showing. Unlike China’s gulags, Islamic countries are actually quite proud of their excesses and it’s not hard to confirm these things from their own media.

Zhumao, seriously you are getting owned here, you are now denying that women get stoned in Islamic countries (which shows how little knowledge you have of the law of the land in some places) and you are also implying that its ok for said women to get stoned because, in your own words “the country can do what it wants”.

Should Dutch diplomats harangue the New Zealand government about the fact that New Zealand has strict anti-cannabis laws, and demand that New Zealand adopt their ‘standard’ of narcotics tolerance?

In Singapore they hang people for half a keg of cannabis. In New Zealand even the local cop may have a smoke.

Should New Zealand lecture Singapore on her ‘barbarism’

The fact is all countries have their own rules, their own ways of doing things, and often if one understands the full historical, and cultural context one will see their is a rationale for even some real weird stuff.

The West demanding countries like China adopt Western style political governance and culture, is no less outrageous than say the Saudis, say, demand China adopt Islam and become a theocracy.

Zhumao, whats the difference between if i copy/paste and if i type it out myself? Its all indisputably factual information

Heres an idea, how about you strengthen your position by rebutting these abuses of human rights that i posted? They are all lies made up by the west right? lol

It’s honestly so funny how you run for the hills once presented with some solid evidence. Its funny, but not suprising, ive debated with many people who hold a similar position to you before (albeit none as extreme).

You are shifting the goal posts (as you often do); we are not in a university, we are having a debate on a internet blog, whether i type out facts or i copy/paste them is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the facts are brought into the discussion.

Its not about the west, its about basic fucking human rights, how is this so hard for you to understand?

Anyway, i have had a lot of fun debating with Zhumao, whether you are a bot, someone from the standard that came here to piss us off or someone who genuinely holds that position, at the very least it has been very entertaining to watch you attempt to defend the indefensible. To your credit, you are very determined.

Its not about the west, its about basic fucking human rights, how is this so hard for you to understand?

You fucken arrogant racist white man.

It is about Western hegemony. Because most of the world’s population simply does not do things the Western way, and do not agree on what constitutes ‘basic human rights’. Look at all the shit directed at China about human rights – -only by US, UK, Britain, France, etc. I don’t see Nigerians, Indians, Mexicans, Russians, Belarussians, South Africans, Indonesians, Singaporeans, Malaysians, Brazilians, Kazahks, Azeris, Algerians, protesting China’s ‘human rights’ or at least very rarely.

That is the arrogance of the Western white man open for all to see. He thinks his way should be everyone’s way.

The fact is the population of Western Europe and the US is fuck all as a percentage of humanity. Your views are becoming less and less relevant and that’s the way things should be.

Although of course he really does not think this. So called human rights, are of course just a means of getting in and exerting control over developing countries.

I suspect reid hasn’t recently seen the graphs of percentage spent on military as a % of GDP (hint: the US spends more than the rest of the world combined). This isn’t even factoring in the NATO alliance.

There are a few, core basic human rights that should extend to all humans (eg Free Speech), its obvious you disagree with this Zhumao, neither of us will change our position therefore it is pointless discussing this further.

Well we’ve done quite well over the centuries Zhumao, I quite liked the Renaissance myself but there have been other moments as well. All in all it does appear we’re pretty terrific actually. So not quite sure what the issue is. But that’s cause I’m a Western white man I expect.

Just to clarify Zhumao, your personal position is that, there are no basic , human rights that should extend to all human beings (eg. Free Speech), its all about to the individual state to decide the plight of its citizens, right?

A number of commentators have now noted this about Zhumao – but some of you may not have seen these earlier pearlers from him (there’s a couple of Zhumao logic bombs in there too):

Such moral reasoning resonates strongly with Asians. But Westerners, especially Anglo Saxons, have shown they are largely impervious to such appeals to universal morality.
….
most likely a reflection of the inability of a large number of people in these two countries to perceive the difference between right and wrong, let alone act upon it.
…
The huge sums of money involved, the huge drug deals, do not point to Asian tendencies towards these type of crimes, but are most likely simply a function of group cohesiveness and Asian cultural adeptness at business – those same qualities which enable Asians to perform well in business, academia, etc will if channeled in the wrong direction also make them super criminals. Thus it is likely the sheer ability and cleverness of Asian crooks that explains the impact of Asian crime – rather than criminal inclinations among Asians.
…
– those same qualities which enable Asians to perform well in business, academia, etc will if channeled in the wrong direction also make them super criminals. Thus it is likely the sheer ability and cleverness of Asian crooks that explains the impact of Asian crime – rather than criminal inclinations among Asians
…
This supports my claim that Asians have less tendency to criminality than whites
…
That supports my claim of, yes, Asian racial superiority re crime – regardless of the magnitude of organized crime
…
And no, I did not know much of the money laundering that goes on in Hong Kong — but it makes sense – it is a commercial hub in the region, and does not imply a tendency to criminality of the people of that place.

Of course Zhumao did back down a bit:

And by the way I did wrongly put the ‘racial’ bit in – but this was in reply to highly racist remarks by other commentators prior to my own post. For the record I do not believe that low Asian crime rates are due to genetic factors.

Shorter Zhumao: Mummy, mummy, they were all racists so I became one too!

This is why he’s such a good little minion, like a pillow he bears the impression of the last master who sat on him.

I have to say that the recent additions to the collection are just as good:

But a Chinese government without Marxist Leninist ideology, which defined virtue as what is in the national interest, would surely be a more dangerous proposition than even a Socialist China – even if only nominally socialist now.

Amazing, China apparently would be dangerous if not for Marxism-Lennism – the same ideology it has dropped in the economic sphere making it now only “nominally socialist”.
….

Although I am unhappy with China’s comments on North Korea of course

Muhahaha. Oh, I’ll just bet you are, perhaps even more pissed than Maoists getting put in jail. It’s going to be quite a shock for you when the PRC leadership dumps the Norks as easily as Mao snubbed the USSR to meet Nixon; Deng Xiaoping decided to do business with South Korea despite Kim Il-Sung’s frantic requests to desist; Jiang Xemin abandoned Albania to support the Serbs during the Kosovo war; and Hu Jintao has displayed a notable lack of grief for the departed Saddam Hussein regime, as Chinese energy companies poured into Iraq in recent years.

because communism is easy to defend because the facts are on our side.

“You can say Hu Jintao is a cunt, or socialism is shit, or the US should invade China.”

So what did that blogger say who they recently threw in jail? Did he really call Hu Jintao that? No wonder.

Seriously:

“You just can’t advocate for overthrowing the socialist system, and act upon it.”

This is the heart of democracy Zhumao, it’s called people power. We’re allowed to act on it, we’re not allowed to create anarchy. Critical difference. Acting to overthrow the govt and committing anarchy are not the same.

you actually are incorrect in that you would face a lot of heat saying those things you said

Fucking bullshit – have you been to the PRC you fucken liar?

Do you personally believe that there are a few , basic human rights that should be available to all people worldwide (eg Free Speech)?

Actually I do believe in this – but to a lesser extent than you. But each country advances towards an ideal according to its own internal situation and in the context of its own culture. For instance, no one says torture is a good thing anymore or would openly admit to it.

But freedom of speech while an ideal is not an absolute. Where the immediate exigencies of the national situation demand, these rights can and should be overridden in certain cases. Also where offense is caused because of historical or cultural reasons.

For instance in Europe one can be jailed simply for questioning the true extent of the Holocaust, and in parts of Eastern Europe, denial of so called ‘communist crimes’ is also outlawed.

In South Korea one can be jailed for several years for possession of pro-North Korean literature.

China’s priority now is improving the basic living standards of hundreds of millions of people. That is the priority.

And when living standards improve, China will be more ready for some of those other things you are talking about.

If you asked me personally for what I would think is an ideal society, I would say the social democratic countries of scandinavia – minus some of the sexual permissvmess and drug taking. That is what I would want China to be like, if possible. Taiwan now is also not so bad.

“Actually I do believe in this – but to a lesser extent than you. But each country advances towards an ideal according to its own internal situation and in the context of its own culture. For instance, no one says torture is a good thing anymore or would openly admit to it.”

There is no lesser extent, you either believe it or you don’t and you clearly don’t.

Thanks for clarifying your position.

“China’s priority now is improving the basic living standards of hundreds of millions of people. That is the priority.

And when living standards improve, China will be more ready for some of those other things you are talking about”

“Anyone who uses rumor, slander or other means to encourage subversion of the political power of the State or to overthrow the socialist system, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years. However, the ringleaders and anyone whose crime is monstrous shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years.”

There is also of course a qualitative difference between capitalist and communist crimes.
…
The socialist countries of course committed excesses, but these were committed in the context of the instability of newly established regimes, subject to ferocious attacks by both domestic and outside forces, and the understandable hysteria and paranoia these would have engendered among the new regimes of the time..
…
Of course there have been excesses in socialist countries. But most of these occurred in times of paranoia during extreme danger to newly established socialist regimes– surrounded by enemies and threatened with annihilation.

I pointed out the following:

Oh dear – more facts. The worst atrocities of the largest Marxist/Lennist regimes occurred a decade or more after their revolutions, when the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was fully embedded in power and able to exercise it without limit.

The peak periods of deliberate famine and outright mass murder in the USSR came in the 1930’s – over a decade after the 1917 revolution.

Similarly in China of course the worst murders came with the Great Leap Forward, occurring from 1958-1962, over a decade after the revolution. The GLF is a stain on China so large and ugly that it’s amazing to me that you would have the chutzpah to write such a brazen statement as the one above.

For this the response I got was:

10 or 15 years is, I would put it, rather ‘new’…

Snap!

Zhumao shifts the goalposts again. Glorious. A tribute to his training in dialectical argumentation.

It’s possible that he was just channelling Zhou Enlai’s comment on the impact of the French Revolution: It is too soon to say” – but more likely he was clawing for any angle to save him from his nonsensical statement about the worst communist atrocities occurring when the regimes were “new”. Sad.

Sorry. The proof of the pudding is in its eating. We have a large Asian country that has so called ‘democracy’ and ‘free speech’ – India. And compared to China it is a basketcase, with about 1/3rd the GDP, hundreds of millions near starvation, and infant mortality rates five times higher than that of China’s.

And what do you think Taiwan was up until 16 years ago, or South Korea – they were authoritarian first, became rich, then liberalized. Singapore is also no democracy in the Western sense.

“to encourage subversion of the political power” you actually have to do something active. You have not been to China so you do not know —much less speak Chinese so fuck off. If that was the case, half of China would be in prison.

“but more likely he was clawing for any angle to save him from his nonsensical statement ”

Seems to be a common theme with him, infact i enjoy watching his desperation, i can just picture the beads of sweat running down his forehead as he struggles to grasp the first thought that comes into whats left of his mind.

I’m sorry Zhumao, obviously you aren’t aware of this (and apologies for being the bringer of bad news); it was long ago concluded that you aren’t worth debating with as quite frankly your position is beyond insanity; it has been dragged on strictly for entertainment purposes. The stream of laughter has run dry now so i have no interest in talking with you anymore.

Thanks and well, sorry for equating you to little more than a clown. It actually was rude of me to do so.

Don’t be sorry. Look at our democracies in their prime, 200 years ago to now. Look what they achieved. If China achieves half what the UK and US have in terms of advancing civilisation, industry, science, trade and humanity it can be proud. I disagree with none of the examples you raise above. Those don’t however sum up our entire contribution.

Let’s for the sake of this argument we accept say 80 million killed by communism in the 20th Century – as claimed by Rummel.

But then Rummel also claims 50 million for colonialism – by capitalist countries (a minimum figure say).

Surely then the capitalist countries are almost on about the same moral plane as the communists (the same I would say – a person who kills 10 million is really morally no better than one who kills 50 million), and the capitalist ‘ ‘democracies’ are worse than Hitlerian Germany who killed ‘only’ 20 to 30 million?

And Churchill is worse than Hitler, or as bad, for allowing 7 million Indians to perish in the Bengal famine?

I will however address one thing, India is not a democracy in its truest sense and therefore it cannot be looked at as any type of democratic model. Even if India was a shining beacon of democracy (again, it is not), it is all roses to look at a country and say “oh they aren’t doing as well as us and they are democratic” but it is a long bow to draw to say “they must be stuggling because of democracy”.

I could elaborate on this all night long but the information is all freely available via google (assuming you are allowed to access google).

Look at our democracies in their prime, 200 years ago to now. Look what they achieved.

So if China invades France and Britain, near exterminates the locals, and sets up a really cool society, for Chinese – then that is all ok?

You love yourselves so much, why not give up all that land you stole and leave the America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and go back to what is already the most crowded continent in the world – Europe.

“Let’s for the sake of this argument we accept say 80 million killed by communism in the 20th Century – as claimed by Rummel.

But then Rummel also claims 50 million for colonialism – by capitalist countries (a minimum figure say).

Surely then the capitalist countries are almost on about the same moral plane as the communists (the same I would say – a person who kills 10 million is really morally no better than one who kills 50 million), and the capitalist ‘ ‘democracies’ are worse than Hitlerian Germany who killed ‘only’ 20 to 30 million?

And Churchill is worse than Hitler, or as bad, for allowing 7 million Indians to perish in the Bengal famine?”

This is a (slightly) better argument than ones you have put foward previously (sorry but this isn’t saying much), however it is irrelevant Zhumao, do you know why?

It is irrelevant because we are not here to compare deaths or poke each other with a moral stick about who has been the bigger sinner from a historical perspective. What we are here to do is discuss the present, and discuss the current situations that are facing humans around the world. One very significant situation is the inaccessibility to basic human rights and it is a FACT that this denial of basic rights generally occurs under communist regimes.

India is not a democracy in its truest sense and therefore it cannot be looked at as any type of democratic model.

Sorry, India is a bone fide political democracy in the Western sense and is acknowledge to be so by almost all Western observers. India does not get any shit at all from the West in respect of its political system.

“You love yourselves so much, why not give up all that land you stole and leave the America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and go back to what is already the most crowded continent in the world – Europe.”

I told you Zhumao, Europe’s not doing very well at the mo, that’s why. Anyway, you glossed over my point without addressing it, as if it wasn’t there, so again: view the Western contribution over the last 200 hundred years in totality and anyone could understand why we actually are really and truly pretty terrific. Results count, Zhumao. We whupped all of the rest of the world’s asses for 200 straight years so fuck all of you, you non-aligned nations you.

As I said, if China could do half of that for half as long, it would be doing very well indeed.

I disagree with none of the examples you raise above. Those don’t however sum up our entire contribution.

Reid. You disagree with none of my examples of Western atrocities, but say oh well in the end it was all worth it because of the ‘sum of our entire contribution.’

I have been making an analogous point about China – saying the overall record is good, apart from the disatrous great leap etc.

When I say such a thing, I am a moral monster – especially to Mike Tan.

So Mike Tan; is Reid also a moral monster for accepting that genocides carried out by the West ‘does not sum up our entire contribution’

It seems as if it is not only communists who are into breaking a few eggs to make an ommelette (we actually are not into this at all – it is only what others claim we are into- in fact it could be argues that most deaths under Mao were due to his fuckups, or at worse – evil for a good end, rather than the West’s evil for an evil end (they were only out to benefit themselves, not the people they exploited)).

Bedtime I think – I can deal with the whole American and Congolese genocides the next time Zhumao turns up and starts into his comparative body counts – but I did remember an almost perfect example of my statement earlier today:

“Until then I’m simply resigned to accepting that Assange and company are on the side of those who wish to hurt me and my society.”

Zhumao did his block right from the start as usual:

Who wishes to hurt you and your society? The Iranians? The Chinese? The Cubans? Robert Mugabe? Come on. Substantiate your statement.

And then I remembered this comment from just the other day

Great stuff. This Assange guy deserves a medal. A main prerequisite for creating a free and open world, is the defeat and utter destruction of the United States…

Why that’s none other than Zhumao of course.

Hardly surprising of course, I’ve heard similar comments from many far-lefters over the years – and judging from Assange’s comments I’ve no doubt that’s exactly what he thinks too. Given the sentiments why would such people not gleefully side with anybody who seeks the defeat and utter destruction of the United States and why would I not interpret such as being evidence of people who wish to hurt me and my society.

I am in no way defending atrocities carried out during the colonisation period.

You are in every way defending atrocities that happened under Mao.

I readily admit and accept that atrocities occured on both sides of the fence however it is inconceivable to me how one can come and defend Mao to the level that you have, simply inconceivable.

We can get into a huge debate where i can break it down point by point as to why democracy trumps communism (every single time) however all i need to do is point you to the evidence which is the very visible diversity between nations that are democratic and nations that are communist (past and present).

A main prerequisite for creating a free and open world, is the defeat and utter destruction of the United States

Oh come on Mr Hunter – stop being a baby — you don’t think Americans make similar comments about China, Iran, North Koera all the time? How many times have I heard nuke North Korea, nuke Iran etc from Westerners.

Surely you know of Ann Coulter’s comments.

The difference is of course Americans are threatening it and likely to act on it, far more than the other way round.

That of course will provoke a reaction – not against Americans because of their lifestyle or political ‘freedoms’ but because people have the right to defend themselves.

…in fact it could be argues that most deaths under Mao were due to his fuckups, or at worse – evil for a good end, rather than the West’s evil for an evil end (they were only out to benefit themselves, not the people they exploited.

Possibly that’s how you see it. It’s certainly the mirror of how the West sees it in that the West doesn’t see exploitation it sees building institutions, governance structures, political, administrative legacies. The things that were done, were done in the context of the times which was not surrounded by the science we had when the fifties rolled round and Mao burst on the scene. But I know China was not in the West’s position at that time, not just technically but in terms of its general access to and experience of the world.

In others words without being disparaging perhaps sociologically China was in a different mindset herself at that time, so that’s why her people don’t see it like we do.

Actually Zhumao, if you ever went to the USA (or researched opinion polls), you would find that an ever increasing (and currently significant portion of the public) are steadfastily against war. There is a ever growing proportion of Americans who are pissed off that so much of their taxes is spent on the military.

It has always been this way, there have always been massive, massive anti-war protests in the USA.

The problem with your analysis is that you are only looking at things from an economic perspective, (also keep in mind what i said about India before). This is not to say that capitalist/democratic nations aren’t economically superior (as more often than not they are infact economically superior)

Measuring the advancement of a nation is complex and a multitude of indicators are necessary, for me personally the most important one is the freedom of speech. I would wager that there is more freedom of speech in India than there is in China.

In others words without being disparaging perhaps sociologically China was in a different mindset herself at that time, so that’s why her people don’t see it like we do.

That is an excellent point you make.

China was simply coming from a different historical experience. Just like people in the West now have very different mindsets from people in the West only half a century ago, let alone a century ago.

In the 1920s people in the West could happily discuss the demise, or even extermination, of coloured races, and this would be completely acceptable socially (have you read the Great Gatsby —Tom Buchanan casually discussed the Lothrop Stoddard’s book – The Rise of the Colored Empires – all the rage in the 1920s).

But that aside, if you look at China today, it seems she is going through a similar era to America’s gilded age – a time of rapid industrial and economic expansion – and high political and commercial corruption.

Measuring the advancement of a nation is complex and a multitude of indicators are necessary, for me personally the most important one is the freedom of speech. I would wager that there is more freedom of speech in India than there is in China.

That is a fair point. But the important thing you say is this: “for me personally”.

I think in all societies, especially ones with large populations and relatively few resources, trade-offs have to be made between individual freedoms and social order. Social order is conducive to advancing the economy, and building robust institutions.

Now some societies may decide – more personal freedom – at the expense of lower economic growth rates, and higher infant mortality perhaps. Another society may decide differently – because of perhaps cultural differences.

So yes, India obviously is ‘better’ when it comes to freedom of speech. China when it comes to life expectancy and the economy. Which do you choose. The choice of course is a personal one.

But surely India, for instance, would have no more right that China adopt India’s system in the name of ‘freedom’, than China would demand India adopt China’s system in the name of lowering infant mortality or improving living standards.

This is what surprises me. I’m not naive enough to think it won’t ever exist but I would have thought the CCP if it wanted to, could keep a reasonable lid on most excesses.

If it ever becomes built into the price of doing business it’s awfully tough to uproot. Just look at how US politics works now, that’s just shocking. I’m surprised the CCP don’t design commercial and market legislation accordingly, eliminating corruption, tax evasion etc can be done, clearly. We see it all over the world.

Like your thought about the Scandinavian exemplar. I would like to see that in China too. Like you, I don’t see China as aggressive. Powerful, yes. A threat? No.

“Why do so many Russian hate his guts then.”

Because they’re stupid and don’t know what’s good for them. Either that or they used to belong to the CPSU before it became a bit unpopular.